Afcll 


VN—> i  : 

^UIBRARYQr 


hoi\m         %omm<^ 


o 


^/.mainihw^ 


LlFO% 


^OFCAUF0% 
06  i 


vomwt 


.^t-IWIVtR.'. 

»   I  -n 

v-SOV^ 


v^clOS-ANGElfju 


AIN(V3t\v 


ERS//v 


^•lOSANGElfj> 


^■LIBRARYQc         ^UIBRARYtf/ 


% 


^IHNV-SOV^       %I3AINA-3\\V^         ^/OJITVDJO^      ^/OJIIVJJO^ 


AWE-UNIVERS/a 


<f3l33NV 


^clOS-ANCElfju 


O  li. 


"^/MAINMftV 


^OF-CAIIFO/?^ 


c-> 


^AavaaiH^' 


^0KALIF(%, 

O11    I 


\ 


^AavaaiH^ 


^•LIBRARY^         ^UIBRARYQr 


^ojiivd-jo^     ^aojnvD-jo^ 


^WE-UNIVERS/a 


<TJWS0V^ 


^IDS-ANCElfj^ 


DO 
3D 


^a3AIN(13W> 


.^0FCALIF(% 

^  K     f      ^\.    i — 

Oe    [\     /   ^m    \    O 
u_i    '1  I'  I"  ■    oo 


y0AHvaan-^ 


.^.OFCALIF0% 


^Aavaaniv^ 


AWE-l)NIVER% 

<0\  B*    'O 


"%1»S0V^ 


^clOS-ANCElfj^ 
"%3AINIH^ 


MODERN    POLITICAL    ORATIONS 


i  N 


CONTENTS. 


CO 

;r 

W 

■a: 


2 

o 

CO 

5 
o 

2 


LORD  BROUGHAM  ON  NEGRO  EMANCIPATION 

T.  B.  MACAULAY  ON  THE  PEOPLE'S  CHARTER 

W.  J.  FOX  ON  THE  CORN  LAWS     .... 

DANIEL  O'CONNELL  ON  REPEAL  OF  THE  UNION  . 

R.   L.  SHEIL  ON  THE  JEWISH  DISABILITIES    BILL 

ALEXANDER  COCKBURN  ON  THE  GREEK  DIFFICULTY 

SIR  BULWER  LYTTON  ON  THE  CRIMEAN  WAR 

THE  EARL  OF  ELLENBOROUGH  ON  THE  POLISH  INSURRECTION 

JOHN    BRIGHT    ON    THE   SUSPENSION    OF   THE    HABEAS   CORPU 
ACT 


u. 
O 

t 


THE  RIGHT  HON.  ROBERT  LOWE  ON  PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM 

THE  RIGHT  HON.  GATHORNE  HARDY  ON  THE  IRISH  CHURCH 

EARL  RUSSELL  ON  THE  BALLOT 

ISAAC  BUTT  ON  HOME  RULE 

A.  M.  SULLIVAN  ON  THE  IRISH  NATIONAL  DEMANDS   . 

THE  EARL  OF  BEACONSFIELD  ON  THE  BERLIN  CONGRESS      . 

JOSEPH  COWEN  ON  THE  FOREIGN  POLICY  OF  ENGLAND 

THE    RIGHT    HON.    W.    E.    GLADSTONE  ON    THE    BEACONSFIEI.l 
MINISTRY 


PAGE 

I 

24 

35 
4' 
5' 
6o 

77 
94 

101 

"3 

140 

158 

164 
172 
1  So 
190 

224 


428775 


Vlll 


Contents. 


CHARLES    BRADI.AUGH  AT  THE  BAR  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS 

JUSTIN  M'CARTHY  IN   DEFENCE  OF  HIS  COLLEAGUES    . 

LORD  RANDOLPH  CHURCHILL  ON  THE  EGYPTIAN  CRISIS 

THE  RIGHT  HON.  JOSEPH  CHAMBERLAIN  ON  LIBERAL  AIMS 

CHAS.  S.  PARNELL  ON  THE  COERCION  BILL 

THE  RIGHT  HON.  JOHN  MORLEY  ON  HOME  RULE 

RICHARD  COBDEN  ON  THE  CORN  LAWS         .... 


PAGB 
242 

249 

26l 

267 

2S3 

292 

3" 


APPENDIX. 

I.    "THE  TIMES"  ON  "  PARNELLISM  AND  CRIME ' 
II.    ORIGINAL  SOURCES  OF  THE  SPEF.CHES   .  . 


329 
343 


LORD  BROUGHAM  ON  NEGRO 
EMANCIPATION. 

House  of  Lords,  February  20TH,  1838. 

[When  the  House  assembled  on  this  date,  Lord  Brougham,  in  a  speech 
of  singular  power  and  earnestness,  introduced  this  motion  : — "  That  an 
humble  address  be  presented  to  Her  Majesty,  earnestly  beseeching  Her 
Majesty  to  take  immediate  steps  for  negotiating  with  the  Governments  of 
Spain  and  Portugal,  and  obtaining  the  concurrence  of  the  Governments  of 
France  and  the  United  States  in  such  negotiations,  with  a  view  to  declare 
the  trade  in  slaves  piracy,  wherever  the  same  is  carried  on  ;  and  making 
those  who  carry  it  on  liable  to  all  the  pains  and  consequences  of  piracy." 
Anticipating  a  Mass  Meeting  in  Exeter  Hall,  he  also  spoke  at  great  length 
in  favour  of  the  abolition  of  Negro  Apprenticeship.] 

7/*L  do  not  think,  my  Lords,  that  ever  but  once  betbfe  in  the 
whole  course  of  my  public  life  I  have  risen  to  address  either 
House  of  Parliament  with  the  anxiety  under  which  I  labour  at 
this  moment.  The  occasion  to  which  alone  I  can  liken  the 
present  was  when  I  stood  up  in  the  Commons  to  expose  the 
treatment  of  that  persecuted  missionary,  whose  case  gave  birth 
to  the  memorable  debate  upon  the  condition  of  our  negro 
brethren  in  the  Colonies — a  debate  happily  so  fruitful  of  results 
to  the  whole  of  this  great  cause.  But  there  is  this  difference 
between  the  two  occasions  to  sustain  my  spirits  now,  that, 
whereas  at  the  former  period  the  horizon  was  all  wrapt  in 
gloom,  through  which  not  a  ray  of  light  pierced  to  cheer  us,  we 
have  now  emerged  into  a  comparatively  bright  atmosphere,  and 
are  pursuing  our  journey  full  of  hope.  For  this  we  have 
mainly  to  thank  that  important  discussion,  and  those  eminent 

A 


2  Modern  Political  Orations. 

men  who  bore  in  it  so  conspicuous  a  part.. y  And  now  I  feel  a 
greater  gratification  in  being  the  means  of  enabling  your  Lord- 
ships, by  sharing  in  this  great  and  glorious  work,  nay,  by  lead- 
ing the  "tony  towards. its  ftnpLaccomplishment,  to  increase  the 
esteem  in:  which  you  itrfc'  .'hthrl  by  your  fellow-citizens  ;  or  if, 
by  ariy  '.differences* -of;  oginion*on  recent  measures  you  may 
unhappily'  have-lost  any  .paction  .of  the  public  favour,  I  know  of 
no  path  more  short,  more  sure,  or  more  smooth,  by  which  you 
may  regain  it  But  I  will  not  rest  my  right  to  your  co-opera- 
tion upon  any  such  grounds  as  these.  I  claim  your  help  by  a 
higher  title.  I  rely  upon  the  justice  of  my  cause — I  rely  upon 
the  power  of  your  consciences — I  rely  upon  your  duty  to  God 
and  to  man — I  rely  upon  your  consistency  with  yourselves — 
and,  appealing  to  your  own  measure  of  1833,  if  you  be  the 
same  men  in  1S38,  I  call  upon  you  to  finish  your  own  work, 
and  give  at  length  a  full  effect  to  the  wise  and  Christian 
principles  which  then  guided  your  steps. 

I  rush  at  once  into  the  midst  of  this  great  argument — I  drag 
before  you  once  more,  but  I  trust  for  the  last  time,  the  African 
Slave  Trade  which  I  lately  denounced  here,  and  have  so  often 
elsewhere.  On  this  we  arc  all  agreed.  Whatever  difference 
of  opinion  may  exist  on  the  question  of  Slavery,  on  the  Slave 
Traffic  there  can  be  none.  I  am  now  furnished  with  a 
precedent  which  may  serve  for  an  example  to  guide  us.  On 
Slavery,  we  have  always  held  that  the  Colonial  Legislature 
could  not  be  trusted  ;  that,  to  use  Mr  Canning's  expression, 
you  must  beware  of  allowing  the  masters  of  slaves  to  make 
laws  upon  Slavery.  But  upon  the  detestable  Traffic  in  Slaves, 
!  1  show  you  the  proceeding  of  a  Colonial  Assembly,  which 
we  should  ourselves  do  well  to  adopt  after  their  example. 
These  masters  of  slaves,  not  to  be  trusted  on  that  subject,  have 
acted  well  and  wisely  on  this.  The  Legislature  of  Jamaica, 
owners  of  slaves,  and  representing  all  other  slave  owners,  feel 
that  they  also  represent  the  poor  negroes  themselves  ;  and 
they  approach  the  throne,  expressing  themselves  thankful — 
tardily  thankful,  no  doubt— that  the  traffic  has  been  for  thirty 


Lord  Brougham  on  Negro  Eviancipation.     3 

years  put  down  in  our  own  Colonies,  and  beseeching  the 
Sovereign  to  consummate  the  great  work  by  the  only  effectual 
means — of  having  it  declared  piracy  by  the  law  of  nations, 
as  it  is  robbery  and  piracy  and  murder  by  the  law  of  God  ! 
This  Address  is  precisely  that  which  I  desire  your  Lordships 
to  present  to  the  same  Gracious  Sovereign.  After  showing  how 
heavily  the  Foreign  Slave  Trade  presses  upon  their  interests, 
they  take  higher  ground  in  this  remarkable  passage — 

"Nor  can  we  forego  the  higher  position,  as  a  question  of  humanity ; 
representing  all  classes  of  the  Island,  we  consider  ourselves  entitled  to  ofler 
to  your  Majesty  our  respectful  remonstrance  against  the  continuance  of 
this  condemned  traffic  in  human  beings.  As  a  community,  composed  of 
the  descendants  of  Africa  as  well  as  Britain,  we  arc  anxious  to  advance  the 
character  of  the  country,  and  we  therefore  entreat  your  Majesty  to  exert 
your  interest  with  foreign  Powers  to  cause  this  trade  at  once  to  be  declared 
piracy,  as  the  only  effectual  means  of  putting  it  down,  and  thereby  to  grace 
the  commencement  of  your  auspicious  reign." 

My  Lords,  I  will  not  stop  to  remind  the  lawgivers  of 
Jamaica  why  it  is  that  the  Slave  Traffic  is  a  crime  of  so  black 
a  dye.  I  will  not  remind  them  that  if  Slavery  were  no  more 
the  Trade  in  Slaves  must  cease  ;  that  if  the  West  Indies  were 
like  England,  peopled  with  free  men  and  cultivated  only  by 
free  hands,  where  no  man  can  hold  his  fellow-creature  in 
bondage,  and  the  labourer  cannot  be  tormented  by  his 
masters ;  if  the  cart-whip  having  happily  been  destroyed,  the 
doors  of  the  prison-house  were  also  flung  open,  and  chains  and 
bolts  and  collars  were  unknown,  and  no  toil  endured  but  by 
the  workmen's  consent,  nor  any  effort  extorted  by  dread  ol 
punishment ;  the  traffic  which  we  justly  call  not  a  trade  but  a 
crime,  would  no  longer  inflict  the  miseries  with  which  it  now 
loads  its  victims,  who,  instead  of  being  conveyed  to  a  place  oi 
torture  and  misery,  would  be  carried  into  a  land  of  liberty  and 
enjoyment.  Nor  will  I  now  pause  to  consider  the  wishes  of 
some  Colonies,  in  part,  I  am  grieved  to  say,  granted  by  the 
Government,  that  the  means  should  be  afforded  them  of  bring- 
ing over  what  they  call  labourers  from  other  parts  of  the  globe, 
to  share  in  the  sufferings  of  slavery,  hardly  mitigated  under  the 


4  Modern  Political  Orations. 

name  of  Apprenticeship.  That  you  should  ever  join  your 
voices  with  them  on  this  matter  is  a  thing  so  out  of  the 
question,  that  I  will  not  detain  you  with  any  other  remark  upon 
it.  But  so  neither  have  I  any  occasion  to  go  at  present  into 
the  subject  of  the  Slave  Trade  altogether,  after  the  statements 
which  I  lately  made  in  this  place  upon  the  pernicious  effects  of 
our  head  money,  the  frightful  extent  of  the  negro  traffic,  and 
the  horrible  atrocities  which  mark  its  course  still  more  awfully 
now  than  before.  In  order  to  support  my  claim  upon  your 
Lordships  for  the  measure  which  alone  can  extirpate  such 
enormities,  I  need  but  refer  you  to  these  statements.  Since 
I  presented  them  here,  they  have  been  made  public,  indeed, 
promulgated  all  over  the  kingdom,  and  they  have  met  with  no 
contradiction,  nor  excited  the  least  complaint  in  any  quarter, 
except  that  many  have  said  the  case  was  understated  ;  and  that 
in  one  place,  and  only  in  one,  I  have  been  charged  with 
exaggeration.  I  have  read  with  astonishment,  and  I  repel  with 
scorn  the  insinuation,  that  I  had  acted  the  part  of  an  advocate, 
and  that  some  of  my  statements  were  coloured  to  serve  a 
cause.  How  dares  any  man  so  to  accuse  me?  How  dares 
any  one,  skulking  under  a  fictitious  name,  to  launch  his 
slanderous  imputations  from  his  covert  ?  I  come  forward  in 
my  own  person.  I  make  the  charge  in  the  face  of  day.  I 
drag  the  criminal  to  trial.  I  openly  call  down  justice  on  his 
head.  I  defy  his  attacks.  I  challenge  investigation.  How 
dares  any  concealed  adversary  to  charge  me  as  an  advocate 
speaking  from  a  brief,  and  misrepresenting  the  facts  to  serve  a 
purpose  ? 

But  the  absurdity  of  this  charge  even  outstrips  its  malice. 
I  stated  that  the  negroes  were  thrown  overboard  in  pairs 
(luring  a  chase,  to  lighten  the  ship  and  enable  her  to  escape — 
thrown  overboard  in  fetters,  that  they  might  sink,  and  not  be 
witnesses  against  the  murderers.  The  answer  is,  that  this  man, 
if  man  he  be,  had  been  <>n  board  slave  ships,  and  never  seen 
such  cruelties.  I  stated  that  the  fetters  were  not  locked,  but 
rivetted  in  the  forge.     The  answer  is,  that  the  writer  had  been 


Lord  Brougham  on  Negro  Emancipation.     5 

on  board  of  slave  ships,  and  seen  fetters  which  were  locked,  and 
not  rivetted.  How  dares  any  man  deny  a  statement  made 
upon  authority,  referred  to  by  name,  on  such  a  trumpery  story 
as  this  ?  As  well  might  he  argue  that  a  murder,  sworn  to  by 
fifty  or  a  hundred  credible  witnesses,  had  never  been  committed, 
because  someone  came  forward  and  said  he  had  not  seen  it  done. 
Did  I  not  give  the  particulars  ?  Did  I  not  avouch  my  authority  ? 
Did  I  not  name  the  gallant  officer  from  whose  official  report, 
printed  and  published,  my  account  was  taken  ?  Did  I  not  give  the 
respected  name  of  Commodore  Hayes,  one  of  the  best-esteemed 
officers  in  Her  Majesty's  Service  ?  I,  indeed,  understated  the  case 
in  many  particulars.  But,  my  Lords,  if  I  have  not  been  charge- 
able with  exaggeration — if  all  who  took  part  in  the  former  debate, 
whether  in  or  out  of  office,  agreed  in  acquitting  me  of  that — 
so  neither  shall  I  be  charged  for  the  future  with  understating 
the  atrocities  of  the  case.  What  I  then  withheld  I  will  now 
tell — and  not  keeping  back  my  authority  now  any  more  than  I 
did  before,  I  appeal  to  my  noble  friend  near  me  (Lord  Sligo) 
for  the  truth  of  the  appalling  story,  himself  a  planter  and  an 
owner  of  slaves.  I  ask  him  if  he  did  not  know  a  vessel 
brought  in  with  a  cargo  of  180  or  200  wretched  beings, 
jammed  into  a  space  three  feet  and  a  half  in  height.  [Lord 
Sligo. — Two  and  a  half.]  There,  my  Lords,  I  am  under- 
stating again.  Into  that  space  of  two  feet  and  a  half  between 
the  decks,  that  number  of  miserable  creatures  were  jammed, 
like  inanimate  lumber,  certainly  in  a  way  in  which  no 
Christian  man  would  crowd  dumb  animals.  My  noble  friend 
will  say  whether  or  not  that  vessel,  whose  slaves  had  never 
been  released,  or  even  washed,  or  in  any  way  cleansed,  since 
it  left  the  African  coast,  presented  an  intolerable  nuisance  to 
all  the  senses — a  nuisance  unfit  for  any  description.  Nor  is 
this  all.  I  will  be  chargeable  with  understatements  no  more  ! 
The  ophthalmia  had  broken  out  among  the  poor  creatures  thus 
kept  in  unspeakable  torment ;  and  as  often  as  anyone  was 
seized,  instead  of  affording  him  any  medical  or  other  assistance, 
he  was  instantly  cast  overboard,  and  sunk  in  his  chains,  with 


6  Modem  Political  Orations. 

the  view  of  stopping  the  infection.  I  will  understate  things  no 
more  !  I  said  before  that  as  many  as  700  slaves  were  carried 
across  the  sea  in  one  ship  ;  there  I  stopped,  for  to  those  who 
know  what  a  slave  ship  is,  this  suffices  to  harrow  up  every 
feeling  of  the  soul.  But  another  vessel  brought  away,  first  and 
last,  in  one  voyage,  980  miserable,  unoffending,  simple  beings  \ 
and  of  this  number,  without  any  chase  or  accident,  or  violence, 
or  any  acts  of  wholesale  murder  such  as  those  we  have  been 
contemplating,  600  perished  on  the  voyage,  through  the 
hardships  and  sufferings  inseparably  connected  with  this 
execrable  traffic.  Of  2,300  or  2,400  carried  away  by  our  other 
ships,  no  less  than  1,500  perished  in  like  manner,  having 
fallen  a  sacrifice  to  the  pestilential  hold. 

How  this  enormous  crime  of  these  foreign  nations  is  to  be 
rooted  out,  I  know  full  well.  You  must  no  longer  treat  it  as  a 
mere  contraband  trade — no  longer  call  murder  smuggling,  or 
treat  pirates  as  offenders  against  the  revenue  laws.  As  long 
as  our  slave  traders  were  so  dealt  with,  they  made  this  calcula- 
tion— "If  we  escape  three  times  in  four,  our  profits  are  so 
large  that  the  seizure  and  confiscation  can  well  be  afforded; 
nay,  if  we  are  taken  as  often  as  we  escape,  the  ships  netting 
,£20,000,  ^30,000,  even  as  much  as  ^50,000  and  ^60,000  a 
voyage,  we  can  well  afford  to  lose  ^"1,500  or  ^2,000  when  the 
adventure  fails."  So  they  ran  the  risk,  and  on  a  calculation  of 
profit  and  loss  were  fully  justified.  But  I  had  in  181 1  the 
singular  happiness  of  laying  the  axe  to  the  root  of  this  detest- 
able system.  I  stopped  all  these  calculations  by  making  the 
trade  felony,  and  punishing  it  as  such;  for  well  I  knew  that 
they  who  would  run  the  risk  of  capture,  when  all  they  could 
suffer  by  it  was  a  diminution  of  their  profits,  would  be  slow  to 
put  their  heads  in  the  noose  of  the  halter  which  their  crimes  so 
richly  deserved.  The  measure  passed  through  all  its  stagi 
in   both    If  withoul    one   dissenting  voice;    and    I    will 

urc  to  assert  that  ever  since,   although    English  capital,  I 
have  too  much  reason  to  think,  fmds  its  way  into  the  For* 
Slave  Trade,  no  Englishman  is  concerned  directly  with  it  in  any 


Lord  Brougham  on  Negro  Emancipation.      7 

part  of  the  world.  Trust  me,  the  like  course  must  be  taken  if 
we  would  put  an  end  to  the  same  crimes  in  other  countries ; 
piracy  and  murder  must  be  called  by  their  right  names,  and 
visited  with  their  appropriate  penalties.  That  the  Spanish  and 
Portuguese  traders  now  make  the  same  calculations  which  I 
have  been  describing,  is  a  certain  fact.  I  will  name  one — 
Captain  Inza,  of  the  ship  Socorra,  who,  on  being  captured,  had 
the  effrontery  to  boast  that  he  had  made  fourteen  slave  voyages, 
and  that  this  was  the  first  time  he  had  been  taken.  Well 
might»he  resolve  to  run  so  slight  a  risk  for  such  vast  gains; 
hut  had  the  fate  of  a  felon  pirate  awaited  him,  not  all  the  gains 
which  might  tempt  his  sordid  nature  would  have  prevailed 
upon  him  to  encounter  that  hazard.  I  formerly  recounted 
instances  of  murder  done  by  wholesale  in  the  course  of  the 
chase  of  our  cruisers.  I  might  have  told  a  more  piteous  tale, 
and  I  will  no  longer  be  accused  of  understating  this  part  of 
the  case  either.  Two  vessels  were  pursued.  One  after  another, 
negroes  were  seen  to  be  thrown  overboard  to  the  number  of  a 
hundred  and  fifty,  of  all  ages — the  elder  and  stronger  ones 
loaded  with  their  fetters  to  prevent  them  from  swimming  or 
floating,  the  weaker  were  left  unchained  to  sink  or  expire ;  and 
this  horrible  spectacle  was  presented  to  the  eyes  of  our 
cruisers'  men ;  they  saw,  unable  to  lend  any  help,  the  water 
covered  with  these  hapless  crentures,  the  men  sinking  in  their 
chains  ;  the  women  and — piteous  sight ! — the  infants  and 
children  struggling  out  their  little  strength  in  the  water  till  they, 
too,  were  swallowed  up  and  disappeared. 

I  now  approach  a  subject,  not,  indeed,  more  full  of  horrors, 
or  of  greater  moment,  but  on  which  the  attention  of  the  people 
has  for  some  time  past  been  fixed  with  an  almost  universal 
anxiety,  and  for  your  decision  upon  which  they  are  now  look- 
ing with  the  most  intense  interest,  let  me  add,  with  the 
liveliest  hopes.  I  need  not  add  that  T  mean  the  great  question 
of  the  condition  into  which  the  slaves  of  our  Colonies  were 
transferred  as  preparatory  to  their  complete  liberation  —  a 
subject  upon  which  your  table  has  been  loaded  with  so  many 


8  Modern  Political  Orations. 

petitions  from  millions  of  your  fellow-countrymen.     It  is  right 
that    I    should    first   remind    your    Lordships   of   the    anxious 
apprehensions  which  were  entertained  in   1833,  when  the  Act 
was    passed,  because  a  comparison   of  those   fears  with  the 
results  of  the  measure  will  form  a  most  important  ingredient 
of  the  argument  which  I  am  about  to  urge  for  the  immediate 
liberation  of  the  apprentices.     I  well  remember  how  uneasy  all 
were  looking  forward  to  the   1st   of  August,    1834,  when  the 
state  of  slavery  was  to  cease,  and   I   myself  shared  in  those 
feelings  of  alarm  when  I  contemplated  the  possible  event  of 
the  vast  but  yet  untried  experiment.     My  fears  proceeded  first 
from  the  character  of  the  masters.     I  knew  the  nature  of  man, 
fond  of  power,  jealous  of  any  interference  with  its  exercise, 
uneasy  at  its  being  questioned,  offended  at  its  being  regulated 
and  constrained,  averse,  above  all,  to  have  it  wrested  from  its 
hands,  especially  after  it  has  been  long  enjoyed,  and  its  posses- 
sion can   hardly  be    severed    from    his    nature.      But   I    also 
was  aware  of  another  and  a  worser  part  of  human  nature.  '  I 
knew  that  whoso  has  abused  power,  clings  to  it  with  a  yet  more 
convulsive  grasp.     I  dreaded  the  nature  of  man,  prone  to  hate 
whom   he  has  injured ;  because  I   knew   that  law  of  human 
weakness  which  makes  the  oppressor  hate  his  victim,  makes 
him  who  has  injured  never  forgive,  fills  the  wrongdoer  with 
vengeance  against  those  whose  right  it  is  to  vindicate  those 
injuries  on  his  own  head.     I  knew  that  this  abominable  law  of 
our  evil  nature  was  not  confined  to  different  races,  contrasted 
hues,  and  strange  features,  but  prevailed  also  between  white 
man  and  white — for  I  never  yet  knew  anyone  hate  me    but 
those  whom  I  had  served,  and  those  who  had  done  me  some 
grievous  injustice.      Why  then  should  I  expect  other  feelings  to 
burn    within    the    planter's  bosom,    and   govern    his   conduct 
irds  the   unhappy   beings    who  had  suffered  so  much  and 
so    long    at    his    hands?      but,    on    the    part    of    the    slaves, 
I  wis  not  without  some  anxiety  when  I  con  iidered  the  corrupt- 
ing effects  of  that  degrading  system  under  which  they  had  lin- 
ages groaned,  and  recognised  the  truth  of  the  saying  in  the  first 


Lord  Brougham  on  Negro  E?nancipalion.     9 

and  the  earliest  of  profane  poets,  that  "the  day  which  makes 
a  man  a  slave  robs  him  of  half  his  value."  I  might  well  think 
that  the  West  Indian  slave  offered  no  exception  to  this  maxim, 
that  the  habit  of  compulsory  labour  might  have  incapacitated 
him  from  voluntary  exertion  ;  that  overmuch  toil  might  have 
made  all  work  his  aversion  ;  that  never  having  been  accustomed 
to  provide  for  his  own  wants,  while  all  his  supplies  were 
furnished  by  others,  he  might  prove  unwilling  or  unfit  to  work 
for  himself,  the  ordinary  inducements  to  industry  never  having 
operated  on  his  mind.  In  a  word,  it  seemed  unlikely  that  long 
disuse  of  freedom  might  have  rendered  him  too  familiar  with 
his  chains  to  set  a  right  value  on  liberty,  or  that,  if  he  panted 
to  be  free,  the  sudden  transition  from  the  one  state  to  the 
other,  the  instantaneous  enjoyment  of  the  object  of  his  desires, 
might  prove  too  strong  for  his  uncultured  understanding ; 
might  overset  his  principles,  and  render  him  dangerous  to  the 
public  peace.  Hence  it  was  that  I  entertained  some  appre- 
hensions of  the  event,  and  yielded  reluctantly  to  the  plan  pro- 
posed of  preparing  the  negroes  for  the  enjoyment  of  perfect 
freedom  by  passing  them  through  the  intermediate  state  of 
Indentured  Apprenticeship. 

Let  us  now  see  the  results  of  their  sudden  though  partial 
liberation,  and  how  far  those  fears  have  been  realised  ;  for 
upon  this  must  entirely  depend  the  solution  of  the  present 
question — Whether  or  not  it  is  safe  now  to  complete  the 
Emancipation  which,  if  it  only  be  safe,  we  have  not  the 
shadow  of  right  any  longer  to  withhold.  Well,  then,  let  us 
see.  The  1st  of  August  came,  the  object  of  so  much  anxiety 
and  so  many  predictions — that  day  so  joyously  expected  by 
the  poor  slaves,  so  sorely  dreaded  by  their  hard  taskmasters ; 
and  surely,  if  there  ever  was  a  picture  interesting,  even  fascinat- 
ing, to  look  upon,  if  there  ever  was  a  passage  to  a  people's 
history  that  redounded  to  their  eternal  honour,  if  ever 
triumphant  answer  was  given  to  all  the  scandalous  calumnies 
for  ages  heaped  upon  an  oppressed  race,  as  if  to  justify  the 
wrongs  done  them,   that  picture,  and  that  passage,  and  that 


io  Modern  Political  Orations. 

answer  were  exhibited  in  the  uniform  history  of  that  auspicious 
day  all  over  the  islands  of  the  Western  Sea.     Instead  of  the 
horizon  being  lit  up  with  the  lurid  fires  of  rebellion,  kindled  by 
a  sense  of  natural  though  lawless  revenge,  and  the  just  resist- 
ance to  intolerable  oppression,  the  whole  of  that  wide-spread 
scene  was  mildly  illuminated  with   joy,   contentment,  peace, 
and  goodwill  towards  men.     No  civilised  nation,  no  people  of 
the  most  refined  character,  could  have  displayed,  after  gain- 
ing a   sudden   and    signal    victory,    more    forbearance,    more 
delicacy,  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  triumph,  than  these  poor 
untutored  slaves  did  upon  the  great  consummation  of  all  their 
wishes  which  they  had  just  attained.     Not  a  gesture  or  a  look 
was  seen  to  scare  the  eye — not  a  sound  or  a  breath  from  the 
negro's  lips  was  heard  to  grate  on  the  ear  of  the  planter.     All 
was  joy,   congratulation,   and   hope.      Everywhere  were  to  be 
seen  groups  of  these  harmless  folks  assembled  to  talk   over 
their  good  fortunes,  to  communicate  their  mutual  feelings  of 
happiness,  to  speculate  on  their  future  prospects.     Finding  that 
they   were  now  free  in  name,  they  hoped  soon  to  taste  the 
reality  of  liberty.     Feeling  their  fetters  loosened,  they  looked 
forward  to  the  day  which  should  see  them  fall  off,   and  the 
ading  marks  which  they  left  be  effaced  from  their  limbs. 
]5ut  all  this  was  accompanied  with  not  a  whisper  that  could 
offence  to  the  master  by  reminding  him  of  the  change. 
This  delicate,  calm,  tranquil  joy   was   alone  to  be  marked  on 
that  day  over  all  the  chain  of  the  Antilles.     Amusements  there 
were  none   to  be  seen    on   that  day — not   even  their  simple 
pastimes  by  which  they  had  been  wont  to  begufie  the  hard 
hours  of  bondage,  and  which  reminded  that  innocent  people 
of  tin    happy  land  of  their  forefathers,  whence  they  had  been 
turn   by  the  hands   of  Christian  and  civilised  men.     The  day 
was  kept   sacred  as  the  festival   of   their   liberation,    for   the 
negroes   are   an   eminently   pious    race.      Every   church   was 
crowded  from  early  dawn  with  devout  and  earnest  worshippers. 
Five  or  six  times  in  the  course  of  that  memorable  Friday  were 
all  those  churches  filled  and  emptied  in  succession   by  multi- 


Lord  Brougham  on  Negro  Emancipation,    i  i 

tudes,  who  came,  not  to  give  mouth-worship  or  eye-worship, 
but  to  render  humble  and  hearty  thanks  to  God  for  their 
freedom  at  length  bestowed.  In  countries  where  the  bounty 
of  nature  provokes  the  passions,  where  the  fuel  of  intemper- 
ance is  scattered  with  a  profuse  hand,  I  speak  the  fact  when 
I  tell  that  not  one  negro  was  seen  in  a  state  of  intoxication. 
Three  hundred  and  forty  thousand  slaves  in  Jamaica  were  at 
once  set  free  on  that  day,  and  the  peaceful  festivity  of  those 
simple  men  was  disturbed  only  on  a  single  estate,  in  one  parish, 
by  the  irregular  conduct  of  three  or  four  persons,  who  were 
immediately  kept  in  order,  and  tranquillity  was  in  one  hour 
restored. 

But  the  termination  of  slavery  was  to  be  an  end  of  all 
labour ;  no  man  would  work  unless  compelled ;  much  less 
would  anyone  work  for  hire.  The  cart- whip  was  to  resound  no 
more,  and  no  more  could  exertion  be  obtained  from  the  indo- 
lent African.  I  set  the  past  against  these  predictions.  I  have 
never  been  in  the  West  Indies ;  I  was  one  of  those  whom, 
under  the  name  of  reasoners,  and  theorists,  and  visionaries,  all 
planters  pitied  for  incurable  ignorance  on  Colonial  affairs  ;  one  of 
those  who  were  forbidden  to  meddle  with  matters  of  which  they 
could  only  judge  who  had  the  practical  knowledge  of  experienced 
men  on  the  spot  obtained.  Therefore  I  now  appeal  to  the 
fact— and  I  also  appeal  to  one  who  has  been  to  the  West 
Indies,  is  himself  a  planter,  and  was  an  eye-witness  of  the 
things  upon  which  I  call  for  his  confirmatory  testimony.  It  is 
to  my  noble  friend  (Lord  Sligo)  that  I  appeal.  He  knows,  for 
he  saw,  that  ever  since  slavery  ceased,  there  has  been  no  want 
of  inclination  to  work  in  any  part  of  Jamaica,  and  that  labour 
for  hire  is  now  to  be  had  without  the  least  difficulty  by  all  who 
can  afford  to  pay  wages,  the  apprentices  cheerfully  working  for 
those  who  will  pay  them  during  the  hours  not  appropriated  to 
their  masters.  My  noble  friend  made  an  inquisition  as  to  the 
state  of  this  important  matter  in  a  large  part  of  his  govern- 
ment ;  and  I  have  his  authority  for  stating  that,  in  nine  estates 
out  of  ten,  labourers  ior  hire  were  to  be  had  without  the  least 


12  Mode  in  Political  Orations. 

difficulty.     Yet  this  was  the  people  of  whom  we  were  told, 
with  a  confidence  that  set  all  contradiction  at  defiance,  with  an 
insulting  pity  for  the  ignorance  of  us  who  had  no  local  experi- 
ence, that  without  the  lash  there  could  be  no  work  done,  and 
that,  when  it  ceased  to  vex  him,  the  African  would  sink  into 
sleep.      The   prediction  is  found   to  have  been   ridiculously 
false  ;  the  negro  peasantry  is  as  industrious  as  our  own,  and 
wages  furnish  more  effectual  stimulus   than  the  scourge.     Oh, 
but,  said  the  men  of  Colonial  experience — the  true  practical 
men — this  may  do  for  some  kinds  of  produce.     Cotton  may  be 
planted,  coffee  may  be  picked,  indigo  may  be  manufactured — 
all  these  kinds  of  work  the  negro  may  probably  be  got  to  do ; 
but,  at  least,  the  cane  will  cease  to  grow,  the  cane-piece  can  no 
longer  be  hoed,  nor  the  plant  be  hewn  down,  nor  the  juice 
boiled,  and  sugar  will  utterly  cease  out  of  the  land.     Now  let 
the  man  of  experience  stand  forward — the  practical  man,  the 
inhabitant  of  the  Colonies — I  require  that  he  now  come  forth 
with  his  prediction,  and  I  meet  him  with  the  fact  ;  let  him  but  ap- 
pear, and  I  answer  for  him,  we  shall  hear  him  prophesy  no  more. 
Put  to  silence  by  the  past,  which  even  these  confident  men 
have  not  the  courage  to  deny,  they  will  at  length  abandon  this 
untenable  ground.     Twice  as  much  sugar  by  the  hour   were 
found,   on   my  noble  friend's  inquiry,   to  be  made  since  the 
apprenticeship,  as  under  the  slave  system,  and  of  a  far  better 
quality  ;  and  one  planter  on  a  vast  scale  has   said   that,  with 
twenty   free  labourers    he    could   do  the  work   of  a   hundred 
slaves,     but  linger  not  on  the  islands  where  the  gift  of  freedom 
has  been  but  half  bestowed.     Look  at  Antigua  and  Bermuda, 
where   the  wisdom   and  the   virtue  have  been  displayed  of  at 
once  giving  Complete  Emancipation.     To  Montscrrat  the  same 
appeal  might  have  been  made,  but  for  the  folly  of  the  Upper 
House,  which  threw  mil  the  bill  passed  in  the  Assembly  by  the 
representatives   of  the   planters.      but  in    Antigua  and  in   Ber- 
muda, where  fur  the  last  three  years  and  a  half  there  has  not 
even  been  an  apprentice     wine  all  have  been  at  once  made 
as  tree  as  the   peasantry  of   this   country — the   produce   has 


Lord  Brougham  on  Negro  Emancipation.    13 

increased,  not  diminished,  and  increased  notwithstanding  the 
accidents  of  bad  seasons,  droughts,  and  fires. 

My  Lords,  I  have  proved  my  case,  and  may  now  call  for 
judgment.  I  have  demonstrated  every  part  of  the  proposition, 
which  alone  it  is  necessary  that  I  should  maintain,  to  prove  the 
title  of  the  apprentice  to  instant  freedom  from  his  taskmasters, 
because  I  have  demonstrated  that  the  liberation  of  the  slave 
has  been  absolutely,  universally  safe — attended  with  not  even 
inconvenience — nay,  productive  of  ample  benefits  to  his  master. 
I  have  shown  that  the  apprentii  e  works  without  compulsion, 
and  that  the  reward  of  wages  are  a  better  incentive  than  the 
punishment  of  the  lash.  I  have  proved  that  labour  for  hire 
may  anywhere  be  obtained  as  it  is  wanted,  and  can  be  pur- 
chased. All  the  apprentices  working  extra  hours  for  hire,  and 
all  the  free  negroes,  wherever  their  emancipation  has  been 
complete,  worked  harder  by  much  for  the  masters  who  have 
wherewithal  to  pay  them,  than  the  slave  can  toil  for  his  owner, 
or  the  apprentice  for  his  master.  Whether  we  look  to  the 
noble-minded  Colonies  which  have  at  once  freed  their  slaves, 
or  to  those  who  still  retain  them  in  a  middle  and  half-free 
condition,  I  have  shown  that  the  industry  of  the  negro  is 
undeniable,  and  that  it  is  constant  and  productive  in  proportion 
as  he  is  the  director  of  its  application  and  the  master  of  its 
recompense.  But  I  have  gone  a  great  deal  further — I  have 
demonstrated  by  a  reference  to  the  same  experience,  the  same 
unquestioned  facts — that  a  more  quiet,  peaceful,  inoffensive, 
innocent  race  is  not  to  be  found  on  the  face  of  this  earth  than 
the  Africans — not  while  dwelling  in  their  own  happy  country, 
and  enjoying  freedom  in  a  natural  state  under  their  own  palm 
trees  and  by  their  native  streams — but  after  they  have  been 
torn  away  from  it,  enslaved,  and  their  nature  perverted  in  your 
Christian  land,  barbarised  by  the  policy  of  civilised  states  ; 
their  whole  character  disfigured,  if  it  were  possible  to  disfigure 
it,  all  their  feelings  corrupted,  if  you  could  have  corrupted 
them.  Every  effort  has  been  made  to  spoil  the  poor  African, 
every  source  of  wicked  ingenuity  exhausted  to  deprave   his 


14  Modern  Political  Orations. 

nature,  all  the  incentives  of  misconduct  placed  around  him  by 
the  fiend-like  artifice  of  Christian  civilised  men,  and  his 
excellent  nature  has  triumphed  over  all  your  arts ;  your 
unnatural  culture  has  failed  to  make  it  bear  the  poisonous  fruit 
that  might  well  have  been  expected  from  such  abominable 
husbandry,  though  enslaved  and  tormented,  degraded  and 
debased,  as  far  as  human  industry  could  effect  its  purpose  of 
making  him  bloodthirsty  and  savage,  his  gentle  spirit  has 
prevailed,  and  preserved,  in  spite  of  all  your  prophecies,  aye, 
and  of  all  your  efforts,  unbroken  tranquillity  over  the  whole 
Charaibean  chain  ! 

Have  I  not  proved  my  case?  I  show  you  that  the  whole 
grounds  of  the  arrangement  of  1833,  the  very  pretext  for  with- 
holding Complete  Emancipation — alleged  incapacity  for  labour 
and  risk  of  insurrection — utterly  fail.  I  rely  on  your  own  records  ; 
I  refer  to  that  record  which  cannot  be  averred  against.  I  plead 
the  record  of  your  own  Statute.  On  what  ground  does  its 
preamble  rest  the  necessity  of  the  intermediate  or  apprentice 
state,  all  admitting  that  nothing  but  necessity  would  justify  it  ? — 

"  Whereas  it  is  expedient  that  provision  should  be  made,  promoting  the 
industry  and  securing  the  good  conduct  of  the  manumitted  slaves." 

Those  are  the  avowed  reasons  for  the  measure,  those  its  only 
defence.  All  men  confessed  that  were  it  not  for  the  apprehen- 
sion of  liberated  slaves  not  working  voluntarily,  and  not 
behaving  peaceably,  of  slavery  being  found  to  have  unfitted 
them  for  industry,  and  of  a  sudden  transition  to  perfect  freedom 
being  fraught  with  clanger  to  the  peace  of  society,  you  had  no 
right  to  make  them  indentured  apprentices,  and  must  at  once 
get  them  wholly  free.  But  the  fear  prevailed,  which,  by  the  event, 
I  have  now  a  right  to  call  a  delusion  ;  and  the  apprenticeship 
was  reluctantly  agreed  to.  The  delusion  went  further.  The 
planter  succeeded  in  persuading  us  that  he  would  be  avast 
by  the  change,  ami  we  gave  him  twenty  millions  sterling 
0  indemnify  him  for  the  supposed  loss.  The  fear  is 
found  to  be  utterly  baseless,  the  loss  is  a  phantom  of  the  brain, 


Lord  Brougham  on  Negro  Emancipation,    i  5 

a  shape  conjured  up  by  the  interested  parties  to  frighten  our 
weak  minds,  and  the  only  reality  in  this  mockery  is  the  pay- 
ment of  that  enormous  sum  to  the  crafty  and  fortunate  magician 
for  his  incantations.  The  spell  is  dissolved,  the  charm  is  over, 
the  unsubstantial  fabric  of  calculating  alarm,  reared  by  the 
Colonial  body  with  our  help,  has  been  crushed  to  atoms,  and  its 
fragments  scattered  to  the  world.  And  now,  I  ask,  suppose  it 
had  been  ascertained  in  1833,  when  you  made  the  Apprentice- 
ship law,  that  those  alarms  were  absolutely  groundless,  the 
mere  phantom  of  a  sick  brain,  or  contrivance  of  a  sordid 
ingenuity,  would  a  single  voice  have  been  raised  in  favour 
of  the  intermediate  state?  Would  the  words  Indentured 
Apprenticeship  ever  have  been  pronounced  ?  Would  the  man 
have  heen  found  endued  with  the  courage  to  call  for  keeping 
the  negro  in  chains  one  hour  after  he  had  been  acknowledged 
entitled  to  his  freedom  ? 

My  Lords,  I  cannot  better  prove  the  absolute  necessity  of 
putting  an  immediate  end  to  the  state  of  apprenticeship  than 
by  showing  what  the  victims  of  it  are  daily  fated  to  endure. 
The  punishments  inflicted  are  of  monstrous  severity.  The  law 
is  wickedly  harsh  ;  its  execution  is  committed  to  hands  that 
exasperate  that  cruelty.  For  the  vague,  undefined,  undefinable 
offence  of  insolence,  thirty-nine  lashes  ;  the  same  number  for 
carrying  a  knife  in  the  pocket ;  for  cutting  the  shoot  of  a  cane- 
plant,  fifty  lashes,  or  three  months'  imprisonment  in  that  most 
loathsome  of  all  dungeons,  a  West  Indian  gaol.  There  seems 
to  have  prevailed  at  all  times,  among  the  law-givers  of  the  slave 
colonies,  a  feeling  of  which  I  grieve  to  say  those  of  the  Mother 
country  have  partaken ;  that  there  is  something  in  the  nature 
of  a  slave,  something  in  the  disposition  of  the  African  race, 
something  in  the  habits  of  those  hapless  victims  of  our  crimes, 
our  cruelties,  and  frauds,  which  requires  a  peculiar  harshness  of 
treatment  from  their  rulers,  and  makes  what  in  other  men's 
cases  we  call  justice  and  mercy  cruelty  to  Society,  and  injustice 
to  the  law  in  theirs,  inducing  us  to  visit  with  the  extremity  of 
rigour  in  the  African  what  if  done  by  our  own  tribes  would  be 


1 6  Modern  Political  Orations. 

slightly  visited,  or  not  at  all,  as  though  there  were  in  the  negro 
nature  something  so  obdurate  that  no  punishment  with  which 
they  can  be  punished  would  be  too  severe.  Prodigious,  por- 
tentous injustice  !  As  if  we  had  a  right  to  blame  any  but 
ourselves  for  whatever  there  may  be  of  harsh  or  cunning  in  our 
slaves  ;  as  if  we  were  entitled  to  visit  upon  him  that  disposition, 
were  it  obdurate — those  habits,  were  they  insubordinate — those 
propensities  were  they  dishonest  (all  of  which  I  deny  them  to 
be,  and  every  day's  experience  justifies  my  denial) ;  but  were 
those  charges  as  true  as  they  are  foully  slanderous,  and 
absolutely  false,  is  it  for  us  to  treat  our  victims  harshly  for 
failings  or  for  faults  with  which  our  treatment  of  him  has  cor- 
rupted  and  perverted  his  nature,  instead  of  taking  to  ourselves 
the  blame,  punishing  ourselves  at  least  with  self-abasement, 
and  atoning  with  deepest  shame  for  having  implanted  vice  in  a 
pure  soil  ?  If  some  capricious  despot  were,  in  the  career  of 
ordinary  tyranny,  to  tax  his  pampered  fancy  to  produce  some- 
thing more  monstrous,  more  unnatural  than  himself  \  were  he 
to  graft  the  thorn  upon  the  vine,  or  place  the  dove  among 
vultures  to  be  reared,  much  as  we  might  marvel  at  this  freak 
of  a  perverted  appetite,  we  should  marvel  still  more  if  we  saw 
tyranny,  even  its  own  measure  of  proverbial  unreasonableness, 
and  complain  because  the  grape  was  not  gathered  from  the 
thorn,  or  because  the  dove  so  trained  had  a  thirst  for  blood. 
Yet  this  is  the  unnatural  caprice,  this  the  injustice,  the  gross, 
the  foul,  the  outrageous,  the  monstrous,  the  incredible  injustice 
of  which  we  are  daily  and  hourly  guilty  towards  the  whole  of 
the  ill-fated  African  race  ! 

My  Lords,  we  fill  up  the  measure  of  this  injustice  by 
executing  laws  wickedly  conceived,  in  a  yet  more  atrocious 
spirit  of  cruelty.  Our  whole  punishments  smell  of  blood. 
Let  the  treadmill  stop,  from  the  weary  limbs  and  exhausted 
frames  of  the  sufferers  no  longer  having  the  power  to  press  it 
down  the  requisite  number  of  turns  in  a  minute—  the  lash 
instantly  resounds  through  the  mansion  of  woe!  Let  the 
Stone    spread    out    to    be    broken,    not   crumble    fast    enough 


Lord  Brougham  on  Negro  Emancipation.     1 7 

beneath  the  arms  already  scarred,  flayed,  and  wealed  by  the 
whip — again  the  scourge  tears  afresh  the  hall  healed  flesh  ! 
My  Lords,  I  have  had  my  attention  directed  within  the  last 
two  hours  to  the  new  mass  of  papers  laid  on  our  table  from 
the  West  Indies.  The  bulk  I  am  averse  to  break,  but  a 
sample  I  have  culled  from  its  hateful  contents.  Eleven  females 
were  punished  by  severe  flogging,  and  then  put  on  the 
treadmill,  where  they  were  compelled  to  ply  until  exhausted 
nature  could  do  no  more.  When  faint,  and  about  to  fall  off, 
they  were  suspended  by  the  arms  in  such  a  manner  that  has 
been  described  to  me  by  a  most  respectable  eye-witness  of 
similar  scenes,  but  not  so  suspended  as  that  the  mechanism 
could  revolve  clear  of  their  person  ;  for  the  wheel  at  each  turn 
bruised  and  galled  their  legs,  till  their  sufferings  had  reached 
the  pitch  when  life  can  no  longer  even  glimmer  in  the  socket 
of  the  weary  frame.  In  the  course  of  a  few  days  these 
wretched  beings  languished,  to  use  the  language  of  our  law 
— that  law  which  is  so  constantly  and  systematically  violated — 
and  "  languishing,  died."  Ask  you  if  crimes  like  these, 
murderous  in  their  legal  nature,  as  well  as  frightful  in  their 
aspect,  passed  unnoticed;  if  inquiry  was  neglected  to  be  made 
respecting  those  deaths  in  a  prison  ?  No  such  thing  !  The 
forms  of  justice  were  on  this  head  peremptory  even  in  the 
West  Indies,  and  those  forms,  the  handmaids  of  justice,  were 
present,  though  their  sacred  mistress  was  far  away.  The 
coroner  duly  attended,  his  jury  were  regularly  empannelled  ; 
eleven  inquisitions  were  made  in  order,  and  eleven  verdicts 
returned.  Murder?  Manslaughter?  Misdemeanour?  Mis 
conduct  ?  No  !  but  "  Died  by  the  visitation  of  God  !  "  Died 
by  the  visitation  of  God  !  A  lie  ! — a  perjury  ! — a  blasphemy  ! 
The  visitation  of  God  !  Yes  ;  for  it  is  among  the  most  awful 
of  these  visitations  by  which  the  inscrutable  purposes  of  His 
will  are  mysteriously  accomplished,  that  He  sometimes  arms 
the  wicked  with  power  to  oppress  the  guiltless  ;  and  if  there  be 
any  visitation  more  dreadful  than  another — any  which  more 
tries  the  faith  and  vexes   the  reason  of  erring  mortals — it  is 

B 


1 8  Modern  Political  Orations. 

when  Heaven  showers  down  upon  the  earth  the  plague — not 
of  scorpions,  or  pestilence,  or  famine,  or  war — but  of  unjust 
judges  or  perjured  jurors — wretches  who  pervert  the  law  to 
wreak  their  personal  vengeance  or  compass  their  sordid  ends, 
and  forswear  themselves  on  the  gospels  of  God,  to  the  end 
that  injustice  may  prevail,  and  the  innocent  be  destroyed — 

"  Sed  non  immensum  Spatiis  confecimus  requor 
Et  jam  tempus  equis  formantia  soluere  colla." 

I  hasten  to  a  close.  There  remains  little  to  add.  It  is, 
my  Lords,  with  a  view  to  prevent  such  enormities  as  I  have 
feebly  pictured  before  you,  to  correct  the  administration  of 
justice,  to  secure  the  comforts  of  the  negroes,  to  restrain 
the  cruelty  of  the  tormentors,  to  amend  the  discipline  of  the 
prisons,  to  arm  the  governors  with  local  authority  over  the 
police ;  it  is  with  those  views  that  I  have  formed  the  first  five 
of  the  resolutions  now  upon  your  table,  intending  they  should 
take  effect  during  the  very  short  interval  of  a  few  months 
which  must  elapse  before  the  sixth  shall  give  complete  liberty 
to  the  slave.  I  entirely  concur  in  the  observation  of  Mr 
Burke,  repeated  and  more  happily  expressed  by  Mr  Canning, 
that  the  masters  of  slaves  are  not  to  be  trusted  with  making 
laws  upon  slavery  ;  that  nothing  they  do  is  ever  found  effec- 
tual ;  and  that  if  by  some  miracle  they  even  chance  to  enact  a 
wholesome  regulation,  it  is  always  found  to  want  what  Mr 
Burke  calls  "the  executory  principle";  it  fails  to  execute 
itself.  But  experience  has  shown  that  when  the  lawgivers 
oi  the  Colonies  find  you  are  firmly  determined  to  do  your 
uuty,  they  anticipate  you  by  doing  theirs.  Thus,  when  you 
announced  the  Bill  for  amending  the  Emancipation  Act,  they 
outstripped  you  in  Jamaica,  and  passed  theirs  before  you  could 
i  them.  Let  then  your  resolutions  only  show  you  to  be 
i  "1  eai  ow,  and  I  have  no  doubt  a  corresponding 

on  wil!  ]»■  evinced  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic 
These  improvements  are,  however,  only  to  be  regarded  as 
temporary   expedients — as   mere   palliatives   of  an   enormous 


Lord  Brougham  on  Negro  Emancipation.     19 

mischief,  for  which  the  only  efficient  remedy  is  that  Complete 
Emancipation  which  I  have  demonstrated  by  the  unerring 
and  incontrovertible  evidence  of  facts,  as  well  as  the  clearest 
deductions  of  reason,  to  be  safe  and  practicable,  and  therefore 
proved  to  be  our  imperative  duty  at  once  to  proclaim. 

From  the  instant  that  glad  sound  is  wafted  across  the  ocean, 
what  a  blessed  change  begins  ;  what  an  enchanting  prospect 
unfolds  itself !  The  African,  placed  on  the  same  footing  with 
other  men,  becomes  in  reality  our  fellow-citizen — to  our  feel- 
ings, as  well  as  in  his  own  nature,  our  equal,  our  brother.  No 
difference  of  origin  or  colour  can  now  prevail  to  keep  the  two 
castes  apart.  The  negro,  master  of  his  own  labour,  only 
induced  to  lend  his  assistance  if  you  make  it  his  interest  to 
help  you  ;  yet  that  aid  being  absolutely  necessary  to  preserve 
your  existence,  becomes  an  essential  portion  of  the  community, 
nay,  the  very  portion  upon  which  the  whole  must  lean  for 
support.  This  ensures  him  all  his  rights  ;  this  makes  it  not 
only  no  longer  possible  to  keep  him  in  thraldom,  but  places 
him  in  a  complete  and  intimate  union  with  the  whole  mass  of 
Colonial  society.  Where  the  driver  and  the  gaoler  once  bore 
sway,  the  lash  resounds  no  more,  nor  does  the  clank  of  the 
chain  any  more  fall  upon  the  troubled  ear  ;  the  fetter  has 
ceased  to  gall  the  vexed  limb,  and  the  very  mark  disappears 
which  for  a  while  it  had  left.  All  races  and  colours  run 
together  the  same  glorious  race  of  improvement.  Peace  un- 
broken, harmony  uninterrupted,  calm  unruffled,  reigns  in 
mansion  and  in  field,  in  the  busy  street  and  the  fertile  valley, 
where  nature,  with  the  lavish  hand  she  extends  under  the 
tropical  sun,  pours  forth  all  her  bounty  profusely,  because 
received  in  the  lap  of  cheerful  industry,  not  extorted  by  hands 
cramped  with  bonds.  Delightful  pictures  of  general  pros- 
perity and  social  progress  in  all  the  arts  of  civility  and 
refinement ! 

But  another  form  is  near  ! — and  I  may  not  shut  my  eyes 
to  that  less  auspicious  vision  !  I  do  not  deny  that  danger 
exists — I   admit  it   to  be  not  far  distant  from   our  path.     I 


20  Modern  Political  Orations. 

descry  it,  but  not  in  the  quarter  to  which  West  Indian  eyes 
for   ever   turn.     The   planter,  as    usual,  looks   in    the   wrong 
direction.     Averting  his  eyes  from  the  real  risk,  he  is  ready 
to  pay  the   price  of  his  blindness,  and  rush   upon  his  ruin. 
His  interest  tells  him    he   is  in   jeopardy,  but   it   is  a  false 
interest,  and  misleads   him   as  to  the  nature  of  the  risk  he 
runs.     They  who   always   dreaded   Emancipation,    who  were 
alarmed    at    the    prospect    of    negro   indolence,    who   stood 
aghast   at  the  vision   of  negro   rebellion,  should   the  chains 
cease    to    rattle,  or    the   lash   to   resound  through   the    air, 
gathering  no  wisdom  from  the  past,  still  persist  in  affrighting 
themselves   and   scaring    you   with   imaginary   apprehensions 
from  the  transition  to  entire  freedom  out  of  the  present  inter- 
mediate state.     But  that  intermediate  state  is  the  very  source 
of  all  their  real  danger;   and   1   disguise  not  its  magnitude 
from  myself.     You   have  gone  too  far  if  you  stop  here  and 
go  no  further ;  you  are  in  imminent  hazard  if,  having  loosened 
the   fetters,  you   do   not   strike   them  off;  if,    leaving   them 
ineffectual  to  restrain,  you   let  them   remain   to    fall,  and  to 
irritate,  and  to  goad.     Beware  of  that  state  yet  more  unnatural 
than  slavery  itself — liberty  bestowed  by  halves — the  power  of 
resistance   given — the   inducement    to    submission   withheld. 
You  have  let  the  slave  taste  of  the  cup  of  freedom ;  while 
intoxicated  with  the  draught,  beware  how  you  dash  the  cup 
away   from   his   lips !     You   have  produced    the   progeny   of 
liberty  —  see   the   prodigious   hazard    of  swathing  the    limbs 
of  the  gigantic   infant ;   you   know   not   the  might  that  may 
animate  it.     Have   a  care,  I  beseech  you,  have  a  care  how 
you  rouse  the  strength  that  slumbers  in  the  sable  peasant's 
arm  !     The  children  of  Africa  under  the  tropical  sun  of  the 
West,  with  the  prospect  of  a  free  negro  republic  in  sight,  will 
not  suffer  themselves  to  be  tormented  when  they  no  longer 
can    be   controlled.     The    fire   in    St    Domingo  is   raging  to 
windward,  its  sparks   are  borne   on    the   breeze,  and  all  the 
Charaibean  Sea  is  studded  with  the  materials  of  explosion. 
Every   tribe,   every   shade  of  the   negro    race  will   combine, 


Lord  Brougham  on  Negro  Emancipation.     21 

from  the  fiery  Koromantin  to  the  peaceful  Oboe,  and  (he 
ghastly  shape  of  the  Colonial  destruction  meets  the  astonished 
eye — 

"  If  shape  it  may  be  called,  that  shape  has  none 
Distinguishable  in  member,  joint,  or  limb  ; 
Or  substance  may  be  ca'lcd  tint,  shadow  seems  ; 
For  each  seems  either.     Black  it  stood  as  night, 
Fierce  as  ten  furies,  terrible  as  Hell  1" 

I  turn  from  the  horrid  vision,  that  my  eye  may  rest  once 
more  on  the  prospect  of  enduring  empire  and  peace  founded 
upon  freedom.     I  regard  the  freedom  of  the  negro  as  accom- 
plished and  sure.     Why  ?     Because   it    is  his  right,  because 
he  has  shown  himself  fit  for  it,  because  a  pretext  or  a  shadow 
of  a  pretext   can   no  longer  be  devised  for  withholding  that 
right  from   its  possessor.     I   know  that  all  men  at  this  day 
take  a  part  in  the  question,  and  they  will   no  longer  bear  to 
be  imposed  upon  now  they  are  well  informed.     My  reliance 
is  firm  and  unflinching  upon  the  great  change  which  I  have 
witnessed — the  education  of  the  people  unfettered  by  party 
or  by  sect — witnessed  from  the  beginning  of  its  progress,  I 
may  say  from  the  hour  of  its  birth.     Yes !     It  was  not  for  a 
humble  man  like  me  to  assist  at  royal  births  with  the  illus- 
trious Prince  who  condescended  to  grace  the  pageant  of  this 
opening  Session,  or  the  great  Captain  and  Statesman  in  whose 
presence  I  am  now  proud  to  speak.     But  with  that  illustrious 
Prince,  and  with  the  father  of  the  Queen,  I  assisted  at  that 
other  birth,  more  auspicious  still.     With  them,  and  with  the 
head  of  the  house  of  Russell,  incomparably  more  illustrious 
in  my  eyes,  I  watched  over  its  cradle— I  marked  its  growth 
— I  rejoiced  in  its  strength — I  witnessed  its  maturity—I  have 
been    spared   to   see   it   ascend   the   very  height  of  supreme 
power,    directing   the    Councils   of    State,    accelerating   every 
great    improvement,    uniting    itself    with    every    good    work, 
propping  all  useful  institutions,  extirpating  abuses  in  all  our 
institutions,  passing  the  bounds  of  our  European  dominion, 
and  in  the  New  World  as  in  the  Old,  proclaiming  that  ireedom 


22  Modern  Political  Orations. 

is  the  birthright  of  man ;  that  distinction  of  colour  gives  no 
title  to  oppression ;  that  the  chains  now  loosened  must  be 
struck  off,  and  even  the  marks  they  have  left  effaced — pro- 
claiming this  by  the  same  eternal  law  of  our  nature  which 
makes  nations  the  masters  of  their  own  destiny,  and  which  in 
Europe  has  caused  every  tyrant's  throne  to  quake  !  But  they 
need  feel  no  alarm  at  the  progress  of  light  who  defend  a 
limited  monarchy  and  support  popular  institutions,  who  place 
their  chiefest  pride  not  in  ruling  over  slaves,  be  they  white 
or  be  they  black,  not  in  protecting  the  oppressor,  but  in 
wearing  a  constitutional  crown,  in  holding  the  sword  of 
justice  with  a  hand  of  mercy,  in  being  the  first  citizen  of  a 
country  whose  air  is  too  pure  for  slavery  to  breathe,  and  on 
whose  shores,  if  the  captive's  foot  but  touch,  his  fetters  of 
themselves  fall  off.  To  the  resistless  progress  of  this  great 
principle  I  look  with  a  confidence  which  nothing  can  shake. 
It  makes  all  improvement  certain  ;  it  makes  all  change  safe 
which  it  produces,  for  none  can  be  brought  about,  unless 
all  has  been  prepared  in  a  cautious  and  salutary  spirit. 

So  now  the  fulness  of  time  is  come  for  at  length  discharging 
our  duty  to  the  African  captive.  I  have  demonstrated  to  you 
that  everything  is  ordered — every  previous  step  taken — all 
safe,  by  experience  shown  to  be  safe,  for  the  long-desired  con- 
summation. The  time  has  come,  the  trial  has  been  made,  the 
hour  is  striking  ;  you  have  no  longer  a  pretext  for  hesitation, 
or  faltering,  or  delay.  The  slave  has  shown,  by  four  years' 
blameless  behaviour  and  devotion  to  the  pursuits  of  peaceful 
industry,  that  he  is  as  lit  for  his  freedom  as  any  English  peasant, 
aye,  or  any  Lord  whom  I  now  address.  I  demand  his  rights  ; 
I  demand  his  liberty  without  stint.  In  the  name  of  justice  and 
of  law,  in  the  name  of  reason,  in  the  name  of  God,  who  has 
given  you  no  right  to  work  injustice,  I  demand  that  your 
brother  be  no  longer  trampled  upon  as  your  slave!  I  make 
my  appeal  to  the  Commons,  who  represent  the  free  people  of 
England,  and  I  require  at  their  hands  the  performance  of  that 
condition  for  which  they  paid  so  enormous  a  price — that  con- 


Lord  Brotigham  on  Negro  Emancipation.     23 

dition  which  all  their  constituents  arc  in  breathless  anxiety  to 
see  fulfilled  !  I  appeal  to  this  House  !  Hereditary  judges  of 
the  first  tribunal  in  the  world,  to  you  I  appeal  for  justice  ! 
Patrons  of  all  the  arts  that  humanise  mankind,  under  your  pro- 
tection I  place  humanity  herself !  To  the  merciful  Sovereign 
of  a  free  people,  I  call  aloud  for  mercy  to  the  hundreds  of 
thousands  for  whom  half  a  million  of  her  Christian  sisters  have 
cried  out ;  I  ask  that  their  cry  may  not  have  risen  in  vain.  But$ 
first,  I  turn  my  eye  to  the  Throne  of  all  justice,  and  devoutly 
humbling  myself  before  Him  who  is  of  purer  eyes  than  to 
behold  such  vast  iniquities,  I  implore  that  the  curse  hovering 
over  the  head  of  the  unjust  and  the  oppressor  be  averted  from 
us,  that  your  hearts  may  be  turned  to  mercy,  and  that  over  all 
the  earth  His  will  may  at  length  be  done ! 


T.   B.   MACAULAY1  ON   THE    PEOPLE'S 

CHARTER. 

House  of  Commons,  May  3RD,  1842. 

[On  this  date  Mr  Thomas  Duncombe,  the  member  for  Finsbury,  moved 
that  the  petitioners  of  the  document  entitled  "The  People's  Charter," 
presented  by  him  on  the  previous  day,  be  allowed  to  be  heard  at  the  Bat 
of  the  House.  Mr  Macaulay  vigorously  opposed  the  motion,  which 
was  rejected  by  287  votes  to  49.] 

Sir, — I  am  particularly  desirous  of  saying  a  few  words  upon 
this  question,  because  upon  a  former  evening,  when  a  discussion 
took  place  upon  a  motion  of  the  hon.  member  for  Rochdale 
(Mr  W.  S.  Crawford),  I  was  prevented  from  being  in  my  place 
by  accidental  circumstances.  I  know  that  the  absence  of  some 
of  the  members  of  the  late  Government  on  that  occasion  was 
considered  and  spoken  of  as  exhibiting  in  their  minds  an  in- 
attention to  this  subject,  or  a  want  of  sympathy  for  the  interests 
of  the  humbler  classes  of  the  people  of  this  country.  For  my- 
self, I  can  answer  that  I  was  compelled  to  absent  myself  on 
account  of  temporary  indisposition.  A  noble  friend  of  mine,  to 
whose  absence  particular  allusion  was  made,  was  prevented  from 
attending  the  House  by  purely  accidental  circumstances ;  and 
no  member  of  the  late  Administration,  I  am  persuaded,  was 
withheld  by  any  unworthy  motives  from  stating  his  opinions 
on  this  subject.  In  the  observations  which  I  shall  now  make 
to  the  House,  I  shall  attempt  to  imitate,  as  far  as  I  can,  the 
very  proper  temper  of  the  speech  of  the  right  hon.  baronet, 

1  Afterwards  Barou  Macaulay. 


T.  B.  Mac  an  lay  on  The  Peoples  Charter.     25 

the  Secretary  of  State  for  the  Home  Department  (Sir  James 
Graham) ;  but  if  I  should  be  betrayed  into  the  use  of  any 
expressions  not  entirely  consistent  with  a  calm  view  of  the  ques- 
tion, the  House  will  attribute  it  to  the  warmth  with  which  I 
view  the  subject  generally,  and  no  one  who  is  acquainted  with 
my  feelings  will  attribute  it  to  any  want  of  kindness  or  of  good 
will  towards  those  who  have  signed  the  petition  which  has  been 
presented  to  the  House. 

With  regard  to  the  motion  which  has  been  made,  I  cannot 
conscientiously  vote  for  it.  The  hon.  member  for  Finsbury 
(Mr  T.  Duncombe)  has  shaped  the  motion  with  considerable 
skill,  so  as  to  give  me  a  very  fair  plea  to  vote  for  it,  if  I  wished 
to  evade  the  discharge  of  my  duty,  so  that  I  might  say  to  my 
Conservative  constituents  :  "  I  never  supported  Universal  Suf- 
frage on  those  extreme  points  for  which  these  petitioners 
call ; "  or  to  a  large  assembly  of  Chartists  :  "  When  your  case 
was  before  the  Commons,  on  that  occasion  I  voted  with  you." 
But  I  think  that  in  a  case  so  important,  I  should  not  discharge 
my  duty  if  I  had  recourse  to  any  such  evasion,  and  I  feel 
myself  compelled  to  meet  the  motion  with  a  direct  negative. 
And  it  seems  to  me  that  if  we  depart  from  our  ordinary  rule 
of  not  hearing  persons  at  the  bar  of  this  House  under  circum- 
stances of  this  nature,  it  must  be  understood,  by  our  adopting 
such  a  course,  if  not  that  we  are  decidedly  favourable  to  the 
motion  which  is  made,  at  least  that  we  have  not  fully  made  up  our 
minds  to  resist  what  the  petitioners  ask.  For  my  own  part,  my 
mind  is  made  up  in  opposition  to  their  prayer,  and,  being  so, 
I  conceive  that  the  House  might  complain  of  me,  and  that  the 
petitioners  might  also  complain  of  me,  if  I  were  to  give  an 
untrue  impression  of  my  views  by  voting  in  favour  of  this 
motion  ;  and  I  think  that  if  I  took  such  a  course,  and  in  three 
or  four  years  hence  I  gave  a  distinct  negative  to  every  c*ie,  or 
to  the  most  important  clauses  of  the  Charter,  there  would  be 
much  reason  to  complain  of  my  disingenuousness.  An  accusa- 
tion founded  upon  such  grounds,  I  shall,  if  I  can,  prevent 
their  bringing  against  me. 


26  Modern  Political  Orations. 

In  discussing  this  question  I  do  not  intend,  as  the  right 
hon.  member  for  Westminster  (Mr  J.  T.  Leader)  has  suggested, 
to  deal  with  the  contents  of  the  petition  with  any  degree  of 
harshness.  To  the  terms  of  it  I  can  scarcely  allude,  but  to  the 
essence  of  it  I  must  refer ;  and  I  cannot  but  see  that  what  the 
petitioners  demand  is  that  we  should  immediately,  without 
alteration,  deduction,  or  addition,  pass  the  Charter  into  a  law ; 
and  when  the  hon.  member  for  Finsbury  calls  on  the  House  to 
hear  persons  in  support  of  the  prayer  of  the  petition  at  the  bar, 
I  say  that  if  he  can  contend  that  the  object  of  that  inquiry  will 
be  to  investigate  causes  of  the  public  distress,  by  all  means 
let  the  motion  be  carried ;  I  will  not  oppose  it.  But  when  I 
see  that  the  petitioners  send  to  this  House,  demanding  that  a 
particular  law  shall  be  passed,  without  addition,  deduction, 
or  modification,  and  that  immediately,  and  that  they  demand 
that  persons  shall  be  heard  at  the  bar  of  the  House  in  favour 
of  that  law,  I  say  that  to  allege  that  the  only  object  of  the 
inquiry  is  to  ascertain  the  causes  of  public  distress  is  a  palter- 
ing with  the  question  to  which  the  House  will  pay  no  attention. 
There  are  parts  of  the  Charter  to  which  I  am  favourable,  for 
which  I  have  voted,  which  I  would  always  support;  and  in 
truth,  of  all  the  six  points  of  the  Charter,  there  is  only  one  to 
which  I  entertain  extreme  and  unmitigated  hostility.  I  have 
voted  for  the  ballot.  With  regard  to  the  proposition  that  there 
should  be  no  property  qualification  required  for  members  of 
this  House,  I  cordially  agree,  for  I  think  that  where  there 
is  a  qualification  of  property  required  for  the  constituent  body, 
a  qualification  for  the  representative  is  altogether  superfluous. 
And  it  is  absurd,  that  while  the  members  for  Edinburgh  and 
Glasgow  are  required  to  have  no  property  qualification,  the 
hon.  member  for  Marylebone  or  Finsbury  must  possess  such  a 
qualification.  1  say  that  if  the  principle  is  to  be  adopted  at 
all,  let  it  be  of  universal  application;  if  it  be  not  so,  let  it  be 
abandoned.  It  is  no  part  of  the  Constitution  of  the  kingdom 
th.it  such  a  qualification  should  be  required;  nor  is  it  a  part 
of  the  consequences  of  the    Revolution  ;  but,  after  all,  it  was 


T.  B.  Macaulay  on  The  Peoples  Charter.    27 

introduced  by  a  bad  Parliament,  now  held  in  no  high  esteem, 
and  for  the  purpose  of  defeating  the  Revolution,  and  excluding 
the  Protestant  succession  to  the  Crown.  With  regard  to  the 
other  points  of  the  Charter,  I  cannot  support  the  proposition 
for  annual  Parliaments,  but  I  should  be  willing  to  meet  the 
wishes  of  the  petitioners  by  limiting  their  duration  to  a  shorter 
period  than  that  for  which  they  may  now  endure.  But  I  do 
not  go  the  length  of  the  Charter,  because  there  is  one  point 
which  is  its  essence,  which  is  so  important  that  if  you  withhold 
it  nothing  can  produce  the  smallest  effect  in  taking  away  the 
agitation  which  prevails,  but  which,  if  you  grant,  it  matters  not 
what  else  you  grant,  and  that  is  universal  suffrage,  or  suffrage 
without  any  qualification  of  property  at  all.  Considering  that 
as  by  far  the  most  important  part  of  the  Charter,  and  having  a 
most  decided  opinion  that  such  a  change  would  be  utterly 
fatal  to  the  country,  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  say  that  I  cannot  hold 
out  the  least  hope  that  I  shall  ever,  under  any  circumstances, 
support  that  change. 

The  reasons  for  this  opinion  I  will  state  as  shortly  as  I  can. 
And,  in  the  first  place,  I  beg  to  say  that  I  entertain  this  view 
upon  no  ground  of  finality  ;  indeed,  the  remarks  which  I  have 
already  made  preclude  such  a  supposition,  but  I  do  admit  my 
belief  that  violent  and  frequent  changes  in  the  government  of 
a  country  are  not  desirable.  Every  great  change,  I  think, 
should  be  judged  on  its  own  merits.  I  am  bound  by  no  tie 
to  oppose  any  legislative  reform  which  I  really  believe  will  con- 
duce to  the  public  benefit ;  but  I  think  that  that  which  has 
been  brought  forward  as  an  undoubted  and  conclusive  argu- 
ment against  a  change  of  this  sort,  that  it  is  perfectly  incon- 
sistent with  the  continuance  of  the  monarchy  or  of  the  House 
of  Lords,  has  been  much  overstated.  And  this  I  say,  though 
I  profess  myself  a  most  faithful  subject  to  Her  Majesty,  and  by 
no  means  anxious  to  destroy  the  connection  which  exists 
between  the  monarchy,  the  aristocracy,  and  the  Constitution, 
I  cannot  consider  either  the  monarchy  or  the  aristocracy  as  the 
end  of  government,  but  only  as  its  means.     I  know  instances 


28  Modern  Political  Orations. 

of  governments  with  neither  a  hereditary  monarchy  or  aristo- 
cracy, yet  flourishing  and  successful,  and  therefore  I  conceive 
this  argument  to  have  been  overstated.  But  I  believe  that 
universal  suffrage  would  be  fatal  to  all  {Purposes  for  which 
government  exists,  and  for  which  aristocracies  and  all  other 
things  exist,  and  that  it  is  utterly  incompatible  with  the  very 
existence  of  civilisation.  I  conceive  that  civilisation  rests  on 
the  security  of  property  ;  but  I  think  that  it  is  not  necessary  for 
me,  in  a  discussion  of  this  kind,  to  go  through  the  arguments, 
and  through  the  vast  experience  which  necessarily  leads  to  this 
result;  but  I  will  assert  that  while  property  is  insecure  it  is 
not  in  the  power  of  the  finest  soil,  or  of  the  moral  or  intellec- 
tual constitution  of  any  country,  to  prevent  the  country  sinking 
into  barbarism  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  while  property  is 
secure,  it  is  not  possible  to  prevent  a  country  from  advancing 
in  prosperity.  Whatever  progress  this  country  has  made,  in 
spite  of  all  the  misgovernment  which  can  possibly  be  imputed 
to  it,  it  cannot  but  be  seen  how  irresistible  is  the  power  of  the 
great  principle  of  security  of  property.  Whatever  may  have 
been  the  state  of  war  in  which  we  were  engaged,  men  were  still 
found  labouring  to  supply  the  deficiencies  of  the  State ;  and  if 
it  be  the  fact  that  all  classes  have  the  deepest  interest  in  the 
security  of  property,  I  conceive  that  this  principle  follows,  that 
wc  never  can,  without  absolute  danger,  entrust  the  supreme 
government  of  the  country  to  any  class  which  would  to  a  moral 
certainty  be  induced  to  commit  great  systematic  inroads  against 
the  security  of  property. 

I  assume  that  this  will  be  the  result  of  this  motion,  and  I 
ask  whether  the  Government,  being  placed  at  the  head  of  the 
majority  of  the  people  of  this  country,  without  any  pecuniary 
qualification,  they  would  continue  to  maintain  the  principle  of 
the  security  of  property?  I  think  not.  And  if  I  am  called 
upon  to  give  a  reason  for  this  belief — not  meaning  to  refer  to 
the  words  of  the  petition  with  any  harsh  view — I  will  look  to 
the  petition  u>  support  what  I  have  said.  The  petition  must 
be  considered  as  u  sort  ot  declaration  of  the  intentions  of  the 


T.  B.  Macau/ay  on  The  Peoples  Charter.     29 

body  who,  if  the  Charter  is  to  become  law,  is  to  become  the 
sovereign  body  of  the  State— as  a  declaration  of  the  intentions 
of  those  who  would,  in  that  event,  return  the  majority  of  the 
representatives  of  the  people  to  this  House.  If  I  am  so  to 
consider  it,  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  look  at  these  words  with- 
out the  greatest  anxiety — 

"  Your  petitioners  complain  that  they  are  enormously  taxed  to  pay 
the  interest  of  what  is  called  the  National  Debt — a  debt  amounting  at 
present  to  ^800,000,000,  being  only  a  portion  of  the  enormous  amount 
expended  in  cruel  and  expensive  wars  for  the  suppression  of  all  liberty,  by 
men  not  authorised  by  the  people,  and  who,  consequently,  had  no  right  to 
tax  posterity  for  the  outrages  committed  by  them  upon  mankind." 

If  I  am  really  to  understand  that  as  an  indication  of  the  opinion 
of  the  petitioners,  it  is  an  expression  of  an  opinion  that  a  na- 
tional bankruptcy  would  be  just  and  politic.  If  I  am  not  so  to 
understand  it,  I  am  utterly  at  a  loss  to  know  what  it  means. 
I  conceive  for  my  own  part  that  it  is  impossible  to  make  any 
distinction  between  the  right  of  the  fundholder  to  his  divi- 
dends, and  the  right  of  the  landholder  to  the  rent  for  his  land, 
and  I  say  that  the  author  of  this  petition  makes  no  such  dis- 
tinction, but  treats  all  alike.  The  petitioners  then  speak  of 
monopolies,  and  they  say — 

"Your  petitioners  deeply  deplore  the  existence  of  any  kind  of  monopoly 
in  this  nation  ;  and  whilst  they  unequivocally  condemn  the  levying  of  any 
tax  upon  the  necessaries  of  life,  and  upon  those  articles  principally  required 
by  the  labouring  classes,  they  are  also  sensible  that  the  abolition  of  any 
one  monopoly  will  never  unshackle  labour  from  its  misery  until  the  people 
possess  that  power  under  which  all  monopoly  and  oppression  must  cease. 
Your  petitioners  respectfully  mention  the  existing  monopolies  of  the  suf- 
frage, of  paper  money,  of  machinery,  of  land,  of  the  public  press,  of 
religion,  of  the  means  of  travelling  and  transit,  and  of  a  host  of  other 
evils  too  numerous  to  mention,  all  arising  trom  class  legislation." 

Now,  I  ask  whether  this  is  not  a  declaration  of  the  opinion 
of  the  petitioners  that  landed  property  should  cease  to  exist  ? 
The  monopoly  of  machinery,  however,  is  also  alluded  to,  and 
I  suppose  that  will  not  be  taken  to  refer  to  the  monopoly  of 
machinery  alone,  but  the  monopoly  of  property  in  general — 
a  view  which  is  confirmed  when  we  turthur  look  to  the  com- 
plaint of  the  monopoly  of  the  means  of  transit.      Can  it  be 


30  Modern  Political  Orations. 

anything  but  a  confiscation  of  property — of  the  funds  and  of 
land— which  is  contemplated?  And  is  it  not  further  proposed 
that  there  should  be  a  further  confiscation  of  the  railways 
also  ?  I  verily  believe  that  that  is  the  effect  of  the  petition. 
What  is  the  monopoly  of  machinery  and  land  which  is  to  be 
remedied?  I  believe  that  it  is  hardly  necessary  for  me  to  go 
into  any  further  explanation  ;  but  if  I  understand  this  petition 
rightly,  I  believe  it  to  contain  a  declaration  that  the  remedies 
for  the  evils  of  which  it  complains,  and  under  which  this 
country  suffers,  are  to  be  found  in  a  great  and  sweeping  con- 
fiscation of  property  ;  and  I  am  firmly  convinced  that  the  effect 
of  any  such  measure  would  be,  not  merely  to  overturn  those 
institutions  which  now  exist,  and  to  ruin  those  who  are  rich, 
but  to  make  the  poor  poorer,  and  the  amount  of  the  misery  of 
the  country  even  greater  than  it  is  now  represented  to  be. 

I  am  far  from  bringing  any  charge  against  the  great  body  of 
those  who  have  signed  this  petition — as  far  as  I  am  from 
approving  of  the  conduct  of  those  who,  in  procuring  the  peti- 
tion to  be  signed,  have  put  the  sentiments  which  it  embodies 
into  a  bad  and  pernicious  form.  I  ask,  however,  are  we  to  go 
out  of  the  ordinary  course  of  Parliamentary  proceedings  for 
the  purpose  of  giving  it  reception?  I  believe  that  nothing  is 
more  natural  than  that  the  feelings  of  the  people  should  be 
such  as  they  are  described  to  be.  Even  we  ourselves,  with  all 
our  advantages  of  education,  when  we  are  tried  by  the  tem- 
porary pressure  of  circumstances,  are  too  ready  to  catch  at 
anything  which  may  hold  out  the  hope  of  relief — to  incur  a 
greater  evil  in  future,  which  may  afford  the  means  of  present 
indulgence ;  and  I  cannot  but  see  that  a  man,  having  a  wife  at 
home  to  whom  he  is  attached  growing  thinner  every  day, 
children  whose  wants  become  every  day  more  pressing,  whose 
mind  is  principally  employed  in  mechanical  toil,  may  have 
been  driven  to  entertain  such  views  as  arc  here  expressed, 
partly  from  his  own  position,  and  partly  from  the  culpable 
neglect  of  the  Government  to  supply  him  with  the  means  and 
the  power  of  forming  a  hetter  judgment.     Let  us  grant  that  edu- 


T.  B.  Macaulay  on  The  People  s  Charter.     3  1 

cation  would  remedy  these  things  ;  shall  we  not  wait  until  it  has 
done  so  before  we  agree  to  such  a  motion  as  this  ?  Shall  we, 
before  such  a  change  is  wanted,  give  them  the  power  and  the 
means  of  ruining,  not  only  the  rich,  but  themselves  ?  I  have 
no  more  unkind  feeling  towards  these  petitioners  than  I  have 
towards  the  sick  man  who  calls  for  a  draught  of  cold  water, 
although  he  is  satisfied  that  it  would  be  death  to  him ;  nor 
than  I  have  for  the  poor  Indians  whom  I  have  seen  collected 
round  the  granaries  in  India  at  a  time  of  scarcity,  praying  that 
the  doors  might  be  thrown  open  and  the  grain  distributed. 
But  I  would  not  in  the  one  case  give  the  draught  of  water,  nor 
would  I  in  the  other  give  up  the  key  of  the  granary ;  because 
I  know  that  by  doing  so  I  shall  only  make  a  scarcity  a  famine, 
and  by  giving  such  relief  enormously  increase  the  evil.  No 
one  can  say  that  such  a  spoliation  of  property  as  these  peti- 
tioners point  at  would  be  a  relief  to  the  evils  of  which  they 
complain ;  and  I  believe  that  no  one  will  deny  that  it  would 
be  a  great  addition  to  the  mischief  which  is  proposed  to  be 
removed.  But  if  such  would  be  the  result,  why  should  such 
power  be  conferred  upon  the  petitioners  ?  That  they  should 
ask  for  it  is  not  blamable  ;  but  on  what  principle  is  it  that 
we,  knowing  that  their  views  are  entirely  delusive,  should  put 
into  their  hands  the  irresistible  power  of  doing  all  this  evil  to 
us  and  to  themselves  ? 

The  only  argument  which  can  be  brought  forward  in  favour 
of  the  proposition  is,  as  it  appears  to  me,  that  this  course  which 
is  demanded  to  be  left  open  to  the  petitioners  will  not  be 
taken;  that  although  the  power  is  given,  they  will  not,  and  do  not, 
intend  to  execute  it.  But  surely  this  would  be  an  extraordinary 
way  of  treating  the  prayer  of  the  petition,  and  it  would  be 
somewhat  singular  to  call  upon  the  House  to  suppose  that 
those  who  are  seeking  for  a  great  concession  put  the  object 
of  their  demand  in  a  much  higher  manner  than  that  which 
presented  itself  to  their  own  minds.  How  is  it  possible  that, 
according  to  the  principles  of  human  nature,  if  you  give  them 
this  power,  it  will  not  be  used  to  its  fullest  extent  ?    There  has 


32  Modern  Political  Orations. 

been  a  constant  and  systematic  attempt  for  years  to  represent 
the  Government  as  being  able  to  do,  and  so  bound  to  attempt, 
that  which  no  Government  ever  attempted;  and  instead  of  the 
Government    being    represented,   as    is   the   truth,    as    being 
supported  by  the  people,  it  has  been  treated  as  if  the  Govern- 
ment  supported   the   people;    it  has  been  treated   as   if  the 
Government    possessed   some   mine   of    wealth — some   extra- 
ordinary means  for  supplying  the  wants  of  the  people  ;  as  if  they 
could  give  them  bread  from  the  clouds — water  from  the  rocks 
— to  increase  the  bread  and  the  fishes  five  thousand-fold.     Is 
it  possible  to  believe  that  the  moment  you  give  them  absolute, 
supreme,    irresistible    power   they   will   forget   all  this?      We 
propose  to  give  them  supreme  power.     In  every  constituent 
body  throughout  the  empire,  capital  and  accumulated  property 
is  to  be  placed  absolutely  at  the  foot  of  labour.     How  is  it 
possible  to  doubt  what  the  result  will  be  ?     Suppose  such  men 
as  the  hon.  members  for  Bath  and  Rochdale  being  returned 
to   sit   in   the   House,    who   would,   I    believe,    oppose   such 
measures  of  extreme  change  as  would  involve  a  national  bank- 
ruptcy.    What  should  be  the  effect  if  their  first  answer  to  their 
constituents  should  be,  "  Justice  and  the  public  good  demand 
that  this  thirty  millions  a  year  should  be  paid  "?     Then,  with 
regard  to  land,  supposing  it  should  be  determined  that  there 
should  be  no  partition  of  land — and  it  is  hardly  possible  to 
conceive  that  there  are  men  to  be  found  who  would  destroy  all 
the  means  of  creating  and  increasing  wages,  and  of  creating 
and  increasing  the  trade  and  commerce  of  this  country,  which 
L;ivcs  employment  to   so  many — is  it  possible  that  the  three 
millions   of  people   who   have  petitioned  the   House   should 
insist  on  the  prayer  of  their  petition? 

I  do  not  wish  to  say  all  that  forces  itself  on  my  mind  with 
nd  to  what  might  he  the  result  of  our  granting  this  Charter. 
Let  us,  if  we  can,  picture  to  ourselves  the  consequences  of  such 
a  spoliation  as  it  is  proposed  should  tike  place.  Would  it  end 
with  one  spoliation?  How  COuldit?  That  distress  which  is 
the  motive  now  for  «  ailing  on  the  House  to  interfere,  would  he 


T.  13.  Macau  lay  on  The  People  s  Charter. 


only  doubled  and  trebled  by  the  Act ;  the  measure  of  distress 
would  become  greater  after  that  spoliation,  and  the  bulwarks 
against  fresh  acts  of  the  same  character  would  have  been 
removed.  The  Government  would  rest  upon  spoliation — all 
the  property  which  any  man  possessed  would  be  supported  by 
it ;  and  is  it  possible  to  suppose  that  a  new  state  of  things 
would  exist  wherein  everything  that  was  done  would  be  right? 
What  must  be  the  effect  of  such  a  sweeping  confiscation  of 
property  ?  No  experience  enables  me  to  guess  at  it.  All  I  cats 
say  is,  that  it  seems  to  me  to  be  something  more  horrid  than 
can  be  imagined.  A  great  community  of  human  beings,  a 
vast  people,  would  be  called  into  existence  in  a  new  position  ; 
there  would  be  a  depression,  if  not  an  uiter  stoppage,  of  trade, 
and  of  all  those  vast  engagements  of  the  country  by  which  our 
people  were  supported  ;  and  how  is  it  possible  to  doubt  that 
famine  and  pestilence  would  come  before  long  to  wind  up  the 
effects  of  such  a  system  ?  The  best  thing  which  I  can  expect, 
and  which  I  think  every  one  must  see  as  the  result,  is,  that  in 
some  of  the  desperate  struggles  which  must  take  place  in  such 
a  state  of  things,  some  strong  military  despot  must  arise,  and 
give  some  sort  of  protection — some  security  to  the  property 
which  may  remain.  But  if  you  flatter  yourselves  that  after  such 
an  occurrence  you  would  ever  see  again  those  institutions 
under  which  you  have  lived,  you  deceive  yourselves ;  you 
would  never  see  them  again,  and  you  would  never  deserve  to 
see  them.  By  all  neighbouring  nations  you  would  be  viewed 
with  utter  contempt,  and  that  glory  and  prosperity  which  has 
een  so  envied  would  be  sneered  at,  and  your  fate  would  thus 
be  told  :  "  England,"  it  would  be  said,  "  had  her  institutions, 
imperfect  though  they  were,  but  which  contained  within  them- 
selves the  means  of  remedying  all  imperfections.  Those  insti- 
tutions were  wantonly  thrown  away  for  no  purpose  whatever, 
but  because  she  was  asked  to  do  so  by  persons  who  sought  her 
ruin  ;  her  ruin  was  the  consequence,  and  she  deserves  it." 
Believing  this,  I  will  oppose  with  every  faculty  which  I  possess 
the  proposition  lor  Universal  Suffrage. 

C 


34  Modern  Political  Orations. 

The  only  question  is,  whether  this  motion  should  be  agreed 
to.  Now,  if  there  is  any  gentleman  who  is  disposed  to  grant 
Universal  Suffrage  with  a  full  view  of  all  its  consequences,  I 
think  that  he  acts  perfectly  conscientiously  in  voting  for  this 
motion  ;  but  I  must  say  that  it  was  with  some  surprise  that 
I  heard  the  hon.  baronet  the  member  for  Leicester  (Sir  J. 
Easthope)  agreeing  with  me  as  he  does  in  the  principles 
which  I  advocate,  say,  notwithstanding,  that  he  is  dis- 
posed to  vote  simply  for  the  motion  for  permitting  these 
petitioners  to  come  to  our  bar  to  speak  in  defence  of  their 
petition.  [Sir  J.  Easthope. — To  expound  their  opinions.] 
I  conceive  their  opinions  are  quite  sufficiently  expounded. 
They  are  of  such  an  extent  that  I  cannot,  I  must  confess, 
pretend  to  speak  of  them  with  much  respect.  I  shall  give  on 
this  occasion  a  perfectly  conscientious  vote  against  hearing  the 
petitioners  at  the  bar;  and  it  is  my  firm  conviction  that  in 
doing  so  I  am  not  only  doing  that  which  is  best  with  respect 
to  the  State,  but  that  I  am  really  giving  to  the  petitioners  them- 
selves much  less  reason  for  complaining  than  those  who  vote 
for  their  being  heard  now,  but  who  will  afterwards  vote  against 
their  demand. 


W.  J.   FOX  ON    THE   CORN   LAWS. 
Drury  Lane  Theatre,  March  29TH,  1843. 

[This  was  the  first  of  the  great  meetings  convened  at  Drury  Lane  Theatre 
by  the  Manchester  Anti-Corn  Law  League.  The  vast  edifice  was  crowded 
to  its  utmost  capacity.] 

Mr  Chairman  and  Gentlemen, — On  the  subject  of  the  Corn 
Laws  it  is,  I  believe,  impossible  to  find  a  new  argument. 
Everything  that  can  be  said  is  but  an  illustration  of  old  ones. 
Of  the  truth  of  this  remark  I  will  myself  be  an  instance  in  the 
few  remarks  I  will  have  to  make  on  the  subject.  It  is  not  to 
be  wondered  at,  however,  that  it  is  impossible  to  say  anything 
new  on  the  subject  of  the  Corn  Laws,  for  there  are  no  new 
arguments  against  oppression  and  robbery  of  the  poor  and 
helpless.  And  yet,  how  is  it,  notwithstanding  it  is  so  well 
known  that  nothing  new  can  be  said  on  the  Corn  Laws, 
that  such  multitudes  as  I  now  see  before  me — and  these 
of  such  respectability — throng  these  meetings?  How  is 
it  that  such  an  excitement  has  arisen,  and  is  increasing,  on 
the  subject  throughout  the  country  ?  To  solve  this  problem 
we  must  look  further  and  deeper  into  things  than  is 
necessary  for  the  mere  flourishings  of  rhetoric.  This  state  of 
things  indicates  that  there  is  going  on  a  great  national  move- 
ment—a movement  which  has  been  originated  by  wrong, 
which  has  progressed  amidst  difficulties,  until  it  now  shows 
the  power  of  opinion  in  the  enforced  pliability  of  the  Govern- 
ment.    But  the  fact  is,  that  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws  is  no 


36  Modern  Political  Orations. 

longer  a  question  to  be  settled  by  argument.  Had  it  been  to 
be  settled  in  this  way,  the  great  work  would  have  been  achieved 
long  ago.  All  the  principles  of  the  Corn  Law  repealers  are 
admitted ;  yet  these  laws  still  remain  in  the  Statute  Book. 
The  question  originated  with  speculative  theorists  in  political 
economy,  who  put  forth  their  occasional  views  in  magazines 
or  in  newspapers  ;  it  has  grown  up  into  this  enormous,  this 
general,  this  triumphant  agitation  ;  and  yet  the  question  is  not 
carried.  Why?  Because  we  have  to  deal  with  sinister 
interests,  not  with  the  convictions  of  the  understanding. 
The  supporters  of  the  Corn  Laws  are  very  fond  of  complain- 
ing of  the  long  speeches  made  by  the  Leaguers  against  them 
when  they  know  they  have  nothing  novel  to  say.  Now,  I 
should  be  very  glad  to  effect  a  compromise  with  those 
objectors.  I  should  be  very  ready  to  say  to  them,  "  If  you 
will  spare  our  pockets,  we  will  spare  your  intellects.  If  you 
will  allow  the  people's  mouths  to  be  filled,  we  will  abstain 
from  filling  your  ears  with  their  remonstrances.  If  you  will 
untax  our  bread,  we  will  no  longer  tax  your  patience." 

It  is  true  that  the  subject  is  an  exhausted  one  ;  but  why 
is  it  exhausted  ?  It  is  because  the  advocates  of  Free  Trade 
have  not  shrunk  from  grappling  with  any  and  every  view  of 
the  question  that  can  be  presented  to  them.  Whatever 
argument  has  been  used,  they  have  met  with  some  resistless 
fact,  completely  destroying  its  effect,  and  to  that  extent  ex- 
hausting the  subject.  They  have  met  the  question  in  every 
light.  Take  it  as  a  foreign  question,  and  they  urge  that  it 
promotes  war,  not  peace  ;  that  even,  if  it  does  not  raise  hostile 
armies  against  this  country,  it  raises  up  hostile  armies  against 
our  commerce.  Take  it  as  a  home  question,  and  it  leads 
directly  and  at  once  to  the  inquiry,  whether  England  is  to 
continue  to  be  the  home  of  Englishmen  ?  The  Corn  Laws 
are  making  England  but  a  dilapidated  home  for  Englishmen, 
and  already  have  upholders  of  these  laws  arrived  at  that  point 
when  they  would  rather  export  our  people  than  import  their 
food.       The  Saxon  laws  bred  their  serfs  as  slaves,  and  they 


W.  J.  Fox  on  the  Corn  Laws.  37 

sold  them  out  of  the  country  as  slaves.  But  they  fed  them  1 
They  gave  the  food  to  enhance  the  price  of  the  people ;  we 
are  now  prepared  to  give  away  the  people  in  order  to  enhance 
the  price  of  the  food.  Looking  at  it  further  as  a  home  question, 
I  wonder  that  even  in  a  financial  point  of  view  the  Minister 
does  not  see  how  ill  these  laws  operate.  Surely  the  annual 
payment  out  of  the  country  of  ^40,000,000  for  the  benefit  of 
one  class  must  materially  diminish  the  tax-paying  power  of 
the  whole  people. 

If  we  look  at  it  as  a  statistical  question,  why,  the  League  has 
collected  every  information  that  figures  can  afford ;  until  the 
arguments  that  spring  from  them  grow  as  thick  as  the  rank 
grass  or  the  leaves  on  the  graves  of  those  victims  of  the 
provision  laws,  who  ought  still  to  be  living  by  the  fruits  of  their 
honest  industry.  Sometimes  the  question  is  looked  at  as  a 
question  of  charity ;  there,  too,  the  League  is  not  behind  with 
its  view  of  the  subject.  Even  the  bread  that  is  given  in  charity 
must  first  pay  the  tax  imposed  by  these  laws ;  and  if,  by  a 
royal  begging  letter,  some  hundreds  of  thousands  of  pounds 
are  collected  for  the  poor  of  Paisley,  why,  the  rapacity  of  this 
dominant  class  must  needs  step  in  and  take  some  ^30,000 
of  the  money  thus  bestowed  in  charity.  That  Book  which 
we  profess  to  revere  tells  us  to  pray  for  our  daily  bread; 
therefore  it  cannot  possibly  teach  men  to  tax  our  daily  bread. 
There  is  one  precept  in  that  Book  with  the  fulfilment  of  which 
these  laws  directly  interfere ;  there  the  young  man  is  told  to 
sell  all  he  has  and  give  it  to  the  poor.  That  precept  it  is 
impossible  to  obey  in  our  day.  The  Corn  Laws  have  rendered 
it  impossible.  It  must  be  altered,  and  in  future  it  will  stand : 
"Sell  all  thou  hast,  and  divide  the  proceeds  between  the 
richest  and  the  poorest,  between  the  pauper  and  the  landlord." 

Or  look  at  it  as  a  class  question.  What  class  is  it  that  is 
interested  in  the  maintenance  of  these  laws?  It  cannot  be 
the  farmer,  because  the  rent  screw  is  turned  upon  him  for 
every  extra  shilling  a  quarter  he  makes  on  his  corn.  It  can- 
not be  the  labouring  classes,  for  look  at  the  wages  of  eight 


38  Modern  Political  Orations. 

shillings  a  week  for  a  family  of  seven  or  eight  persons.  It  is 
not  the  commercial  class,  for  the  present  system  keeps  them 
out  of  a  foreign  as  well  as  a  home  market.  It  cannot  be  the 
literary  class,  for  who  would  care  to  provide  food  for  the  mind, 
when  the  food  for  the  body  is  so  heavily  taxed  ?  Then,  in  fact, 
it  cannot  be  any  class  but  that  very  small  one,  composed  of 
some  10,000  or  20,000  (not  more)  of  nominal  owners  of  the 
soil.  I  speak  not  of  that  much  larger  class  of  real  holders  of 
landed  property,  whose  interests  are  identified  with  the  welfare 
of  their  country,  because  in  proportion  as  the  towns  increase 
in  wealth,  and  the  people  in  comfort,  so  does  their  property 
increase  in  value.  I  speak  not  of  these,  but  of  the  merely 
titular  possessors  of  mortgaged  property—  men  who  seek  only 
the  means  of  meeting  present  exigencies,  and  who  care  not 
that  they  will  leave  the  remainder  of  their  estates  to  be  dis- 
cussed by  their  impoverished  posterity.  And  is  it  for  the  sake 
of  such  a  class  as  this  that  a  great  people  is  to  be  stopped  in 
their  onward  march  ?  Suppose  they  do  realise  the  cash  which 
seems  to  be  the  object  of  all  their  legislation,  can  they  shake 
off  the  condition  that  invariably  attaches  to  its  acquirement? 
While  they  receive  their  share  of  the  Bread  Tax,  can  they 
avoid  also  receiving  their  share  of  the  odium,  of  the  deep 
responsibility  that  attends  it,  the  responsibility  of  having  perilled 
the  safety  of  the  country,  of  having  struck  at  the  root  of  its 
prosperity,  of  having  turned  the  industrious  out  of  employment, 
earning  not  the  blessings,  but  the  curses  of  those  whom  their 
laws  have  driven  to  the  state  in  which  they  are  ready  to  perish, 
of  exposing  themselves  to  the  reprobation  of  all  good  men, 
and  to  the  unfailing  retribution  of  providential  justice? 

One  great  argument  used  in  favour  of  these  laws  is  that 
they  make  England  independent  of  all  the  world.  A  much 
more  proper  way  to  take  it  is  that  they  make  all  the  world 
independent  of  England.  They  isolate  Great  Britain  from  the 
family  of  nations,  and  they  are  the  destruction  of  that  inter- 
com ie,  and  that  interchange  of  kindness  which  it  seems  to  be 
the  plan  of  Providence  in  thus  dividing  mankind  into  nations 


W.  J.  Fox  on  the  Com  Laws.  39 

to  promote.  The  question  now  is  no  longer  one  of  argument, 
as  I  have  already  said  ;  it  is  a  question  of  will.  The  will  of 
the  landlords,  it  is,  arrayed  against  everlasting  justice.  Man 
toils  for  his  bread  by  the  sweat  of  his  brow — it  is  just  that  he 
should  receive  that  bread  untaxed,  for  the  artificial  enhance- 
ment of  his  neighbour's  profit ;  but  those  who  tax  will  tax 
anything.  They  have  laid  a  tax  upon  the  light — they  would,  if 
they  could,  lay  a  tax  upon  the  eyes  for  gazing  upon  the  beauty 
of  the  heavens  ;  they  would  lay  a  tax  upon  Cassiopeia's  chariot, 
and  on  Orion's  belt,  they  would  impose  a  fixed  duty  on  the 
shining  of  the  Pleiades,  and  place  the  Greater  and  the  Lesser 
Bear  on  a  sliding  scale.  But  it  seems  that  we  are  to  be 
debarred  from  agitating  for  a  repeal  of  these  laws  because  Sir 
Robert  Peel  has  introduced  his  measure  of  last  Session.  /That 
bantling  of  now  exactly  a  year  and  a  day  old  is  too  young,  the 
right  hon.  baronet  thinks,  to  be  put  to  death.  He  asks 
for  a  trial.  As  if  the  other  schemes  had  not  been  tried  ! 
What  are  we  to  try?  Is  it  the  principle  of  the  measure? 
Why,  Sir  Robert  Peel  has  himself  given  up  the  principle  in 
agreeing  to  the  arrangement  for  the  importation  of  American 
corn  through  Canada.  That  is  virtually  a  fixed  duty  of  10/ 
or  12/,  and  a  surrender  of  the  very  principle  which  Sir  Robert 
Peel  has  come  into  office  pledged  to  maintain.  It  is  a  fixed 
duty,  only  by  a  circumbendibus. 
^  We  are  asked  to  give  this  measure  a  trial.  Why,  if  we  do, 
what  will  be  the  result?  We  know  well  enough  already  what 
the  real  operation  of  the  plan  will  be ;  and  in  the  meantime 
the  work  of  ruin  will  still  be  going  on.  There  will  be  more 
foreign  tariffs,  more  shut-up  mills,  more  discharges  of  work- 
men, more  distress  and  misery  among  the  industrial  classes  ; 
and  all  these  evils  are  to  be  incurred  for  the  sake  of  imposing 
a  tax  on  bread — the  boldest  step  any  Government  can  take — 
and  certainly  imposing  on  the  proposers  of  it  not  only  a 
ministerial,  but  a  very  deep  and  heavy  personal  and  individual 
responsibility.  But  if  Sir  Robert  Peel  has  his  experiment,  the 
Leaguers  have  theirs  also,  and  they  have  come  here   to  this 


40  Modern  Political  Orations. 

place  to  try  it.  The  agitation  of  the  question  of  repeal  of  the 
Corn  Laws  has  marched  up  from  Manchester  to  the  metropolis 
— it  has  spread  far  and  wide,  and  now  we  shall  see  who  will 
hold  out  the  longest,  the  people  or  the  Minister.  That  indi- 
vidual and  the  people  are  both  the  subjects,  the  slaves  of  that 
class  which  lords  over  all,  and  commands  and  masters  the 
ministers  and  the  legislature,  the  navy,  aye,  and  the  Church  ; 
that  class  which  even  commands  the  Crown.  The  people  of 
this  country,  with  all  their  untiring  industry,  their  ingenuity, 
and  amiable  dispositions,  are  the  mere  appendages  of  the  dirty 
acres  which  are  inherited  by  that  class.  The  very  disgrace, 
the  unspeakable  degradation  of  the  Corn  Laws,  is  intolerable, 
to  say  nothing  of  the  sufferings  which  they  are  calculated  to 
inflict.  We  are  therefore  glad  to  welcome  the  League  amongst 
us ;  the  people,  being  part  and  parcel  of  the  League,  are 
determined  to  aid  and  support  it ;  we  shall  devote  ourselves 
to  it,  not  merely  by  attending  their  weekly  meetings  in  this 
theatre  or  elsewhere,  but  we  will  solemnly  and  soberly  pledge 
ourselves  to  it  as  a  religious  sentiment.  We  shall  swear  by 
Him  who  liveth  for  ever  and  ever  that  this  egregious  folly  of 
the  Corn  Laws,  this  foul  wrong,  this  atrocious  iniquity,  shall  be 
utterly  and  for  ever  abolished,    x 


DANIEL  O'CONNELL  ON  REPEAL 
OF  THE   UNION. 

Hill  of  Tara,  August  151H,  1843. 

[Of  all  mass  meetings  ever  heard  of,  this  was  unquestionably  the  greatest. 
It  was  computed  by  reliable  witnesses,  not  at  all  favourable  to  the  cause 
which  O'Connell  espoused,  that  no  fewer  than  a  quarter  of  a  million 
persons  must  have  been  present.  They  came  from  all  parts  of  the  coun- 
try round,  under  the  guidance  of  their  parish  priests.] 

Fellow-Irishmen, — It  would  be  the  extreme  of  affectation  in 
me  to  suggest  that  I  have  not  some  claim  to  be  the  leader  of 
this  majestic  meeting.  It  would  be  worse  than  affectation ;  it 
would  be  drivelling  folly,  if  I  were  not  to  feel  the  awful  respon- 
sibility to  my  country  and  my  Creator  which  the  part  I  have 
taken  in  this  mighty  movement  imposes  on  me.  Yes ;  I  feel 
the  tremendous  nature  of  that  responsibility.  Ireland  is  roused 
from  one  end  to  the  other.  Her  multitudinous  population  has 
but  one  expression  and  one  wish,  and  that  is  for  the  extinction 
of  the  Union  and  the  restoration  of  her  nationality.  (A  cry  0/ 
"  No  compromise  !  ")  Who  talks  of  compromise  ?  I  have 
come  here,  not  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  schoolboy's  attempt 
at  declamatory  eloquence,  not  to  exaggerate  the  historical 
importance  of  the  spot  on  which  we  now  stand,  or  to  endeavour 
to  revive  in  your  recollection  any  of  those  poetic  imaginings 
respecting  it  which  have  been  as  familiar  as  household  words. 
But  this  it  is  impossible  to  conceal  or  deny,  that  Tara  is 
surrounded  by  historical  reminiscences  which  give  it  an  import- 
ance worthy  of  being  considered  by  everyone  who  approaches 


42 


Modern  Political  Orations. 


it  for  political  purposes,  and  an  elevation  in  the  public  mind 
which  no  other  part  of  Ireland  possesses.  We  are  standing 
upon  Tara  of  the  Kings  ;  the  spot  where  the  monarchs  of  Ireland 
were  elected,  and  where  the  chieftains  of  Ireland  bound  them- 
selves, by  the  most  solemn  pledges  of  honour,  to  protect  their 
native  land  against  the  Dane  and  every  stranger.  This  was 
emphatically  the  spot  from  which  emanated  every  social  power 
and  legal  authority  by  which  the  force  of  the  entire  country  was 
concentrated  for  the  purposes  of  national  defence. 

On  this  spot  I  have  a  most  important  duty  to  perform.     I 
here  protest,  in  the  name  of  my  country  and  in  the  name  of  my 
God,  against  the  unfounded  and  unjust  Union.     My  proposition 
to  Ireland  is  that  the  Union  is  not  binding  on  her  people.     It 
is  void  in  conscience  and  in  principle,  and  as  a  matter  of  con- 
stitutional law  I  attest  these  facts.     Yes,  I  attest  by  everything 
that  is  sacred,  without  being  profane,  the  truth  of  my  assertions. 
There  is  no  real  union  between  the  two  countries,  and  my  pro- 
position is  that  there  was  no  authority  given  to  anyone  to  pass 
the  Act  of  Union.     Neither  the  English  nor  the  Irish  Legisla- 
ture was  competent  to  pass  that  Act,  and  I  arraign  it  on  these 
grounds.     One  authority  alone  could  make  that  Act  binding, 
and  that  was  the  voice  of  the  people  of  Ireland.     The  Irish 
Parliament  was  elected  to  make  laws  and  not  to  make  legisla- 
tures ;  and,  therefore,  it  had  no   right  to  assume  the  authority 
to  pass  the  Act  of  Union.     The  Irish  Parliament  was  elected  by 
the  Irish  people  as  their  trustees  ;  the  people  were  their  masters, 
and  the  members  were  their   servants,    and   had  no  right  to 
transfer  the  property  to  any  other  power  on  earth.     If  the  Irish 
Parliament    had   transferred   its   power   of  legislation   to   the 
French  Chamber,    would   any  man   assert   that   the   Act  was 
valid?     Would  any  man   be  mad  enough  to  assert  it;  would 
any  man  be  insane  enough  to  assert  it,  and  would  the  insanity 
of  the  assertion  be  mitigated   by  sending  any  number  of  mem- 
bers to  the  Fren<  h  <  Chamber?     Everybody  must  admit  that  it 
would  not.      What  care  I  for  France?     and  I  care  as  little  lor 
England  us  for   France,  for  both  countries  are  foreign  to  me. 


Daniel  (J Connell  on  Repeal  of  the  Union.    43 

The  very  highest  authority  in  England  has  proclaimed  us  to  be 
aliens  in  blood,  in  religion,  and  in  language.  {Groans.)  Do 
not  groan  him  for  having  proved  himself  honest  on  one  occasion 
by  declaring  my  opinion.  But  to  show  the  invalidity  of  the 
Union  I  could  quote  the  authority  of  Locke  on  "  Parliament." 
I  will,  however,  only  detain  you  by  quoting  the  declaration  of 
Lord  Plunket  in  the  Irish  Parliament,  who  told  them  that  they 
had  no  authority  to  transfer  the  legislation  of  the  country  to 
other  hands.  As  well,  said  he,  might  a  maniac  imagine  that 
the  blow  by  which  he  destroys  his  wretched  body  annihilates 
his  immortal  soul,  as  you  to  imagine  that  you  can  annihilate 
the  soul  of  Ireland — her  constitutional  rights.  / 

I  need  not  detain  you  by  quoting  authorities  to  show  the 
invalidity  of  the  Union.  I  am  here  the  representative  of  the 
Irish  nation,  and  in  the  name  of  that  moral,  temperate,  virtuous, 
and  religious  people,  I  proclaim  the  Union  a  nullity.  Saurin, 
who  had  been  the  representative  of  the  Tory  party  for  twenty 
years,  distinctly  declared  that  the  Act  of  Union  was  invalid.  He 
said  that  the  Irish  House  of  Commons  had  no  right,  had  no 
power,  to  pass  the  Union,  and  that  the  people  of  Ireland  would 
be  justified,  the  first  opportunity  that  presented  itself,  in  effect- 
ing its  repeal.  So  they  are.  The  authorities  of  the  country 
were  charged  with  the  enactment,  the  alteration,  or  the  adminis- 
tration of  its  laws.  These  were  their  powers  ;  but  they  had 
no  authority  to  alter  or  overthrow  the  Constitution.  I  therefore 
proclaim  the  nullity  of  the  Union.  In  the  face  of  Europe  I 
proclaim  its  nullity.  In  the  face  of  France,  especially,  and  of 
Spain,  I  proclaim  its  nullity  ;  and  I  proclaim  its  nullity  in  the 
face  of  the  liberated  States  of  America.  I  go  farther,  and  pro- 
claim its  nullity  on  the  grounds  of  the  iniquitous  means  by 
which  it  was  carried.  It  was  effected  by  the  most  flagrant 
fraud.  A  rebellion  was  provoked  by  the  Government  of  the 
day,  in  order  that  they  might  have  a  pretext  for  crushing  the 
liberties  of  Ireland.  There  was  this  addition  to  the  fraud,  that 
at  the  time  of  the  Union  Ireland  had  no  legal  protection.  The 
Habeas  Corpus  Act  was  suspended,  and  the  lives  and  liberties  uf 


44  Modern  Political  Orations, 

the  people  were  at  the  mercy  of  courts-martial.  You  remember 
the  shrieks  of  those  who  suffered  under  martial  law.  One  day 
from  Trim  the  troops  were  marched  out  and  made  desolate 
the  country  around  them.  No  man  was  safe  during  the  entire 
time  the  Union  was  under  discussion.  The  next  fraud  was 
that  the  Irish  people  were  not  allowed  to  meet  to  remonstrate 
against  it.  Two  county  meetings,  convened  by  the  High 
Sheriffs  of  these  counties,  pursuant  to  requisitions  presented  to 
them,  were  dispersed  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet.  In  King's 
County  the  High  Sheriff  called  the  people  together  in  the 
Court-house,  and  Colonel  Connor  of  the  North  Cork  Militia, 
supported  by  artillery  and  a  troop  of  horse,  entered  the  Court- 
house at  the  head  of  200  of  his  regiment  and  turned  out  the 
Sheriff,  Magistrates,  Grand  Jurors,  and  freeholders  assembled 
to  petition  against  the  enactment  of  the  Union.  (A  Voice. — 
"  We'll  engage  they  won't  do  it  now  !  ")  In  Tipperary  a  simi- 
lar scene  took  place.  A  meeting  convened  by  the  High  Sheriff 
was  dispersed  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet.  Thus  public  senti- 
ment was  stifled  ;  and  if  there  was  a  compact,  as  is  alleged, 
it  is  void  on  account  of  the  fraud  and  force  by  which  it  was 
carried.  But  the  voice  of  Ireland,  though  forcibly  suppressed 
at  public  meetings,  was  not  altogether  dumb.  Petitions  were 
presented  against  the  Union  to  which  were  attached  no  less 
than  770,000  signatures.  And  there  were  not  3,000  signatures 
for  the  Union,  notwithstanding  all  the  Government  could  do. 

My  next  impeachment  against  the  Union  is  the  gross  cor- 
ruption with  which  it  was  carried.  No  less  than  ,£1,275,000 
was  spent  upon  the  rotten  boroughs,  and  ^2,000,000  was 
given  in  direct  bribery.  There  was  not  one  office  that  was  not 
made  instrumental  to  the  carrying  of  the  measure.  Six  to 
seven  judges  were  raised  to  the  Bench  for  the  votes  they  gave 
in  its  support ;  and  no  less  than  twelve  bishops  were  elevated  to 
the  Episcopal  Bench  for  having  taken  the  side  of  the  Union  ; 
for  corruption  then  spared  nothing  to  effect  its  purpose — cor- 
ruption was  never  carried  so  far;  and  if  this  is  to  be  binding  on 
the  Irish  nation,  there  is  no  use  in  honesty  at  all.     Yet  in  spite 


Daniel  GConnell  on  Repeal  of  the  Union.     45 

of  all  the  means  employed,  the  enemies  of  Ireland  did  not 
succeed  at  once.  There  was  a  majority  of  eleven  against  the 
Union  the  first  time.  But  before  the  proposition  was  brought 
forward  a  second  time,  members  who  could  not  be  influenced 
to  vote  for  the  measure  were  bribed  to  vacate  their  seats,  to 
which  a  number  of  English  and  Scotch  officers,  brought  over 
for  the  purpose,  were  elected,  and  by  their  votes  the  Union  was 
carried.  In  the  name  of  the  great  Irish  nation  I  proclaim  it 
a  nullity.  At  the  time  of  the  Union  the  national  debt  of 
Ireland  was  only  ^20,000,000.  The  debt  of  England  was 
,£440,000,000.  England  took  upon  herself  one-half  the  Irish 
debt,  but  she  placed  upon  Ireland  one-half  of  the  ^440,000,000. 
England  since  that  period  has  doubled  her  debt,  and  admit- 
ting a  proportionate  increase  as  against  Ireland,  the  Irish  debt 
would  not  now  be  more  than  ^40,000,000 ;  and  you  may 
believe  me  when  I  say  it  in  the  name  of  the  great  Irish  people, 
that  we  will  never  pay  one  shilling  more.  In  fact,  we  owe  but 
,£30,000,  as  is  clearly  demonstrated  in  a  book  lately  published 
by  a  near  and  dear  relative  of  mine,  Mr  John  O'Connell,  the 
member  for  Kilkenny.  I  am  proud  that  a  son  of  mine  will  be 
able,  when  the  Repeal  is  carried,  to  meet  any  of  England's 
financiers,  and  to  prove  to  them  the  gross  injustice  inflicted 
upon  Ireland. 

My  next  impeachment  of  the  Union  is  its  destructive  and 
deleterious  effect  upon  the  industry  and  prosperity  of  the 
country.  The  county  of  Meath  was  once  studded  with  noble 
residences.  What  is  it  now  ?  Even  on  the  spot  where  what 
is  called  the  great  Duke  of  Wellington  was  born,  instead  of  a 
splendid  castle  or  noble  residence,  the  briar  and  the  bramble 
attest  the  treachery  that  produced  them.  You  remember  the 
once  prosperous  linen-weavers  of  Meath.  There  is  scarcely 
a  penny  paid  to  them  now.  In  short,  the  Union  struck  down 
the  manufactures  of  Ireland.  The  Commissioners  of  the  Poor 
Law  prove  that  120,000  persons  in  Ireland  are  in  a  state  of 
destitution  during  the  greater  part  of  each  year.  How  is  it  that 
in  one  of  the  most  fertile  countries  in  the  world  this  should 


46  Modern  Political  Orations. 

occur  ?  The  Irish  never  broke  any  of  their  bargains  nor  their 
treaties,  and  England  never  kept  one  that  was  made  on  her 
part.  There  is  now  a  union  of  the  legislatures,  but  I  deny 
that  there  is  a  union  of  the  nations,  and  I  again  proclaim  the 
Act  a  nullity.  England  has  given  to  her  people  a  municipal 
reform  extensive  and  satisfactory,  while  to  Ireland  she  gives  a 
municipal  reform  crippled  and  worthless.  But  the  Union  is 
more  a  nullity  on  ecclesiastical  grounds;  for  why  should  the 
great  majority  of  the  people  of  Ireland  pay  for  the  support  of  a 
religion  which  they  do  not  believe  to  be  true  ?  The  Union 
was  carried  by  the  most  abominable  corruption  and  bribery,  by 
financial  robbery  on  an  extensive  scale,  which  makes  it  the 
more  heinous  and  oppressive  ;  and  the  result  is  that  Ireland 
is  saddled  with  an  unjust  debt,  her  commerce  is  taken  from 
her,  her  trade  is  destroyed,  and  a  large  number  of  her  people 
thus  reduced  to  misery  and  distress. 

Yes,  the  people  of  Ireland  are  cruelly  oppressed,  and  are 
we  tamely  to  stand  by  and  allow  our  dearest  interests  to  be 
trampled  upon  ?  are  we  not  to  ask  for  redress  ?     Yes,  we  will 
ask  for  that  which  alone  will  give  us  redress — a  Parliament  of 
our  own.     And  you   will  have  it  too,   if  you  are  quiet  and 
orderly,  and  join  with  me  in  my  present  struggle.     {Loud  cheers.) 
Your  cheers  will  be  conveyed  to  England.     Yes,  the  majority 
of  this  mighty  multitude  will  be  taken  there.     Old  Wellington 
began  by  threatening  us,  and  talked  of  civil  war,  but  he  says 
nothing  about  it  now.     He  is  getting  inlet  holes  made  in  stone 
barracks.     Now,  only  think  of  an   old  general  doing  such  a 
thing,  as,  if  there  were  anything  going  on,  the  people  would 
attack  stone  walls  !     I  have  heard  that  a  great  deal  of  brandy 
and  biscuits  have  been   sent  to  the  barracks,  and  I  sincerely 
hope  the  poor  soldiers  will  get  some  of  them.     Your  honest 
brothers,  the  soldiers,  who  have  been   sent  to  Ireland,  areas 
orderly  and  as  brave  men  as  any  in  Ireland.     I  am  sure  that 
not  one  of  you  has  a  single  complaint  to  make  against  them. 
If  any  of  you   have,  say  so.     {Loud  cries  of  "  No,  no  !  ")     They 
are  the  bravest  men  in  the  world,  and  therefore  I  do  not  dis- 


Daniel  GConnell  on  Repeal  of  the  Union.    47 

parage  them  at  all  when  I  state  this  fact,  that  if  they  are  sent 
to  make  war  against  the  people,  I  have  enough  women  to  beat 
them.     There  is  no  mockery  or  delusion  in  what  I  say.     At  the 
last  fight  for  Ireland,  when  we  were  betrayed  by  a  reliance  on 
English  honour,  which  we  would  never  again  confide  in — for  I 
would  as  soon  confide  in  the  honour  of  a  certain  black  gentleman 
who  has  got  two  horns  and  hoofs — but,  as  I  was  saying,  at  the 
last  battle  for  Ireland,  when,  after  two  days'  hard  fighting,  the 
Irish  were  driven  back  by  the  fresh  troops  brought  up  by  the 
English  to  the  bridge  of  Limerick,   at  that  point  when  the 
Irish  soldiers  retired  fainting  it  was  that  the  women  of  Limerick 
threw  themselves  in  the  way,  and  drove  the  enemy  back  fifteen, 
twenty,  or  thirty  paces.     Several  of  the  poor  women  were  killed 
in  the  struggle,  and   their  shrieks  of  agony  being  heard  by 
their  countrymen,  they  again  rallied  and  determined  to  die  in 
their  defence,  and,  doubly  valiant  in  the  defence  of  the  women, 
they  together  routed  the  Saxons.     Yes,  I  repeat,  I  have  enough 
women  to  beat  all  the  army  of  Ireland.     It  is  idle  for  any 
minister  or  statesman  to  suppose  for  a  moment  that  he  can 
put  down  such  a  struggle  as  this  for  liberty.     The  only  thing  I 
fear  is  the  conduct  of  some  ruffians  who  are  called  Ribbonmen. 
I  know  there  are  such  blackguards,  for  I  have  traced  them 
from  Manchester.     They  are  most  dangerous  characters,  and 
it  will  be  the  duty  of  every  Repealer,  whether  he  knows  or  by  any 
means  can  discover  one  of  them,  immediately  to  hand  him  over 
to  justice  and  the  law.     The  Ribbonmen  only  by  their  proceed- 
ings can  injure  the  great  and  religious  cause  in  which  I  am 
now  engaged,  and  in  which  I  have  the  people  of  Ireland  at 
my  back. 

This  is  a  holy  festival  in  the  Catholic  Church — the  day  upon 
which  the  Mother  of  our  Saviour  ascended  to  meet  her  Son, 
and  reign  with  Him  for  ever.  On  such  a  day  I  will  not  tell  a 
falsehood.  I  hope  I  am  under  her  protection  while  addressing 
you,  and  I  hope  that  Ireland  will  receive  the  benefit  of  her 
prayers.  Our  Church  has  prayed  against  Espartero  and  his 
priest-terrorising,   church-plundering   marauders,    and    he  has 


4S  Modern  Political  Orations. 

since  fallen  from  power— nobody  knows  how,  for  he  makes  no 
effort  to  retain  it.  He  seems  to  have  been  bewildered  by  the 
Divine  curse,  for  without  one  rational  effort  the  tyrant  of  Spain 
has  faded  before  the  prayers  of  Christianity.  I  hope  that 
there  is  a  blessing  in  this  day,  and,  fully  aware  of  its  solemnity, 
I  assure  you  that  I  am  afraid  of  nothing  but  Ribbonism,  which 
alone  can  disturb  the  present  movement.  I  have  proclaimed 
from  this  spot  that  the  Act  of  Union  is  a  nullity,  but  in  seeking 
for  Repeal  I  do  not  want  you  to  disobey  the  law.  I  have  only 
to  refer  to  the  words  of  the  Tories'  friend,  Saurin,  to  prove 
that  the  Union  is  illegal.  I  advise  you  to  obey  the  law  until 
you  have  the  word  of  your  beloved  Queen  to  tell  you  that  you 
shall  have  a  Parliament  of  your  own.  {Cheers,  and  loud  cries  of 
"So  we  will!")  The  Queen— God  bless  her !— will  yet  tell 
you  that  you  shall  have  a  legislature  of  your  own — three  cheers 
for  the  Queen  !     {Immense  cheering.) 

On  the  2nd  of  January  last  I  called  this  the  Repeal  year,  and 
I  was  laughed  at  for  doing  so.  Are  they  laughing  now  ?  No  ; 
it  is  now  my  turn  to  laugh ;  and  I  will  now  say  that 
in  twelve  months  more  we  will  have  our  Parliament 
again  on  College  Green.  The  Queen  has  the  undoubted 
prerogative  at  any  time  to  order  her  Ministers  to  issue 
writs,  which,  being  signed  by  the  Lord  Chanrjllor,  the 
Irish  Parliament  would  at  once  be  convened  without  the 
necessity  of  applying  to  the  English  Legislature  to  repeal  what 
they  appear  to  consider  a  valid  Act  of  Union.  And  if  dirty 
Sugden  would  not  sign  the  writ,  an  Irish  Chancellor  would 
soon  be  found  who  would  do  so.  And  if  we  have  our  Parlia- 
ment again  in  Dublin,  is  there,  I  would  ask,  a  coward  amongst 
you  who  would  not  rather  die  than  allow  it  to  be  taken  away 
by  an  Act  of  Union?  {Loud  cries  of  "No  one  would  ever 
submit  to  it  1"  "  We'd  rather  die !"  etc.)  To  the  last  man? 
{Cries  /  "To  the  last  man!")  Let  every  man  who  would  not 
allow  the  \(t  oi  Union  to  pass  hold  up  his  hand.  (An 
immense  forest  of  hands  was  shown.)  When  the  Irish  Parlia- 
ment is  again  assembled,  I  will  defy  any  power  on  earth  to 
take  it  from  us  again.     Are  you  all  ready  to  obey  me  in  the 


Daniel  O'Connell  on  Repeal  of  the  Union.     49 

course  of  conduct  which  I  have  pointed  out  to  you?  {Cries  cf 
"  Yes,  yes ! ")  When  I  dismiss  you  to-day,  will  you  not  dis- 
perse and  go  peaceably  to  your  homes— ("Yes,  yes,  we  will!") 
— every  man,  woman,  and  child  ? — in  the  same  tranquil  manner 
as  you  have  assembled?  ("Yes,  yes!")  But  if  I  want  you 
again  to-morrow,  will  you  not  come  to  Tara  Hill?  ("Yes, 
yes!")  Remember,  I  will  lead  you  into  no  peril.  If  danger 
should  arise,  it  will  be  in  consequence  of  some  persons  attack- 
ing us,  for  we  are  determined  not  to  attack  any  person ;  and  if 
danger  does  exist,  you  will  not  find  me  in  the  rear  rank.  When 
we  get  our  Parliament,  all  our  grievances  will  be  put  an  end  to; 
our  trade  will  be  restored,  the  landlord  will  be  placed  on  a  firm 
footing,  and  the  tenants  who  are  now  so  sadly  oppressed  will  be 
placed  in  their  proper  position.  "  Law,  Peace,  and  Order  "  is 
the  motto  of  the  Repeal  banner,  and  I  trust  you  will  all  rally 
round  it.  {Cries  of  "We  are  all  Repealers!")  I  have  to 
inform  you  that  all  the  magistrates  who  have  recently  been 
deprived  of  the  Commission  of  the  Peace  have  been  appointed 
by  the  Repeal  Association  to  settle  any  disputes  which  may 
arise  amongst  the  Repealers  in  their  respective  localities.  On 
next  Monday  persons  will  be  appointed  to  settle  disputes  with- 
out expense,  and  I  call  on  every  man  who  is  the  friend  of 
Ireland  to  have  his  disputes  settled  by  arbitrators  without  ex- 
pense, and  to  avoid  going  to  the  Petty  Sessions. 

I  believe  I  am  now  in  a  position  to  announce  to  you  that  in 
twelve  months  more  we  will  not  be  without  having  an  Hurrah  ! 
for  the  Parliament  on  College  Green.  (Immense  cheering.) 
Your  shouts  are  almost  enough  to  call  to  life  those  who  rest  in 
the  grave.  I  can  almost  fancy  the  spirits  of  the  mighty  dead 
hovering  over  you,  and  the  ancient  kings  and  chiefs  of  Ireland, 
from  the  clouds,  listening  to  the  shouts  sent  up  from  Tara  for 
Irish  liberty.  Oh  !  Ireland  is  a  lovely  land,  blessed  with  the 
bounteous  gifts  of  Nature,  and  where  is  the  coward  who  would 
not  die  for  her?  (Cries  of  "Not  one!")  Your  cheers  will 
penetrate  to  the  extremity  of  civilisation.  Our  movement  is 
the  admiration  of  the  world,  for  no  other  country  can  snow  so 

D 


5<D  Modern  Political  Orations. 

much  force  with  so  much  propriety  of  conduct.  No  other 
country  can  show  a  people  assembled  for  the  highest  national 
purposes  that  can  actuate  man ;  can  show  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands able  in  strength  to  carry  any  battle  that  ever  was  fought, 
and  yet  separating  with  the  tranquillity  of  schoolboys.  You 
have  stood  by  me  long — stand  by  me  a  little  longer,  and 
Ireland  will  be  again  a  nation. 


R.    L.    SHEIL   ON    THE    JEWISH 
DISABILITIES  BILL. 

House  of  Commons,  February  7TH,  1848. 

[From  the  time  of  Mr  Robert  Grant's  motion  for  the  admission  of  Jews  to 
Parliament,  April  5th,  1830,  when  Mr  Macaulay  made  his  maiden  speech 
in  the  House,  Bills  to  this  end  were  repeatedly  brought  in,  and  occasionally 
passed  by  the  Commons,  but  always  thrown  out  by  the  Lords.  The 
election  of  Baron  Rothschild  for  the  City  of  London,  in  1847,  added  a  new 
zest  to  Jewish  Emancipation.  It  was  not,  however,  until  1858  that  the 
Jewish  Disabilities  were  entirely  removed.] 

Sir, — If  the  hon.  the  learned  and  exceedingly  able  gentle- 
man who  has  just  sat  down  (Mr  Walpole)  had  been  a 
member  of  the  House  of  Commons  when  the  member  for 
Tamworth  brought  forward  the  measure  of  Emancipation,  the 
speech  which  he  has  this  night  pronounced  against  the  Jews 
would  have  been  fully  as  apposite  upon  that  great  historical 
occasion.  With  all  his  habits  of  fine  forensic  discrimination, 
I  do  not  think  that  he  can  distinguish  between  the  objections 
urged  against  the  Catholic  and  against  the  Jew.  He  has,  for 
example,  strenuously  insisted  that,  in  the  writ  by  which  the 
sheriff  is  commanded  to  hold  an  election,  a  reference  is  made 
to  the  maintenance  of  the  Anglican  Church.  That  objection  is 
nearly  as  strong  when  applied  to  the  Unitarian,  the  Baptist,  the 
Independent,  and  above  all,  to  the  professors  of  the  religion  to 
which  it  is  my  good  fortune  to  belong.  That  men  subject  to 
all  the  duties  should  be  deemed  unworthy  of  the  rights  of 
Englishmen,  appears  to  me  to  be  a  remarkable  anomaly.     The 


52  Modern  Political  Orations. 

enjoyment  of  rights  ought  not  to  be  dissociated  from  the 
liabilities  to  duties.  A  British  subject  ought  in  every  regard 
to  be  considered  a  British  citizen ;  and  inasmuch  as  the  pro- 
fessors of  the  most  ancient  religion  in  the  world,  which,  as  far 
as  it  goes,  we  not  only  admit  to  be  true,  but  hold  to  be  the 
foundation  of  our  own,  are  bound  to  the  performance  of  every 
duty  which  attaches  to  a  British  subject,  to  a  full  fruition  of 
every  right  which  belongs  to  a  British  citizen,  they  have,  I 
think,  an  irrefragable  title.  A  Jew  born  in  England  cannot 
transfer  his  allegiance  from  his  Sovereign  and  his  country;  if  he 
were  to  enter  the  service  of  a  foreign  Power  engaged  in  hos- 
tilities with  England,  and  were  taken  in  arms,  he  would  be 
accounted  a  traitor.  Is  a  Jew  an  Englishman  for  no  other  pur- 
poses than  those  of  condemnation  ?  I  am  not  aware  of  a 
single  obligation  to  which  other  Englishmen  are  liable  from 
which  a  Jew  is  exempt;  and  if  his  religion  confers  on  him  no 
sort  of  immunity,  it  ought  not  to  affect  him  with  any  kind  of 
disqualification. 

It  has  been  said,  in  the  course  of  these  discussions,  that  a 
Jew  is  not  subject  to  penalties,  but  to  privations.  But  what  is 
privation  but  a  synonym  for  penalty?  Privation  of  life,  priva- 
tion of  liberty,  privation  of  property,  privation  of  country,  priva- 
tion of  right,  privation  of  privilege — these  are  degrees  widely 
distant  indeed,  but  still  degrees  in  the  graduated  scale  of  perse- 
cution. The  Parliamentary  disability  that  affects  the  Jew  has 
been  designated  in  the  course  of  these  debates  by  the  mollified 
expressions  to  which  men  who  impart  euphemism  to  severity 
are  in  the  habit  of  resorting ;  but  most  assuredly  an  exclusion 
from  the  I  [ouse  of  Commons  ought,  in  the  House  of  Commons 
itself,  to  be  regarded  as  a  most  grievous  detriment.  With  the 
dignity,  and  the  greatness,  and  the  power  of  this,  the  first 
assembly  in  the  world,  the  hardship  of  exclusion  is  commen- 
surate. Some  of  the  most  prominent  opponents  of  this  measure 
are  among  the  last  by  whom  a  seal  in  Parliament  ought  to  be 
held  in  little  account.  On  this  brain  h  of  the  case — the  hard- 
ship of  an  exclusion  from  this  House — I  can  speak  as  a  witness 


R.  L.  Shell  on  the  Jewish  Disabilities  Bill.   $$ 

as  well  as  an  advocate.  I  belong  to  that  great  and  powerful 
community  which  was  a  few  years  ago  subject  to  the  same 
disqualification  that  affects  the  Jew  ;  and  I  felt  that  disqualifica- 
tion to  be  most  degrading.  Of  myself  I  will  not  speak,  because 
I  can  speak  of  the  most  illustrious  pi  rson  by  whom  that  com- 
munity was  adorned.  I  have  sat  under  the  gallery  of  the 
House  of  Commons,  by  the  side  of  Mr  O'Connell,  during  a 
great  discussion  on  which  the  destiny  of  Ireland  was  dependent. 
I  was  with  him  when  Plunket  convinced,  and  Brougham  sur- 
prised, and  Canning  charmed,  and  Peel  instructed,  and  Russell 
exalted  and  improved.  How  have  I  seen  him  repine  at  his 
exclusion  from  the  field  of  high  intellectual  encounter  in  those 
lists  in  which  so  many  competitors  for  glory  were  engaged,  and 
into  which,  with  an  injurious  tardiness,  he  was  afterwards 
admitted  !  How  have  I  seen  him  chafe  the  chain  which  bound 
him  down,  but  which,  with  an  effort  of  gigantic  prowess,  he 
burst  at  last  to  pieces  !  He  was  at  the  head  of  millions  of  an 
organised  and  indissoluble  people.  The  Jew  comes  here  with 
no  other  arguments  than  those  which  reason  and  truth  supply ; 
but  reason  and  truth  are  of  counsel  with  him ;  and  in  this 
assembly,  which  I  believe  to  represent,  not  only  the  high 
intelligence,  but  the  highmindedness  of  England,  reason  will 
not  long  be  baffled,  and  truth,  in  fulfilment,  of  its  great 
aphorism,  will  at  last  prevail. 

I  will  assume  that  the  exclusion  from  this  House  is  a  great 
privation,  and  I  proceed  to  consider  whether  it  be  not  a  great 
wrong.  Nothing  but  necessity  could  afford  its  justification; 
and  of  this  plea  we  should  be  taught,  by  a  phrase  which  has 
almost  grown  proverbial,  to  beware.  Cardinal  Caraffa  relied 
upon  necessity  when  he  founded  that  celebrated  tribunal 
whose  practices  are  denounced  by  you,  but  upon  whose  maxims 
have  a  care  lest  you  should  unconsciously  proceed.  The 
sophistications  of  intolerance  are  refuted  by  their  inconsis- 
tencies. If  a  Jew  can  choose,  wherefore  should  he  not  be 
chosen  ?  If  a  Jew  can  vote  for  a  Christian,  why  should  not  a 
Christian  vote  for  a  Jew  ?     Again,  the  Jew  is  admissible  to  the 


54  Modern  Political  Orations. 

highest  municipal  employments ;  a  Jew  can  be  High  Sheriff— 
in  other  words,  he  can  empannel  the  jury  by  which  the  first 
Christian  Commoner  in  England  may  be  tried  for  his  life. 
But  if  necessity  is  to  be  pleaded  as  a  justification  for  the 
exclusion  of  the  Jew,  it  must  be  founded  on  some  great  peril 
which  would  arise  from  his  admission.  What  is  it  you  fear? 
What  is  the  origin  of  this  Hebrewphobia?  Do  you  tremble 
for  the  Church  ?  The  Church  has  something  perhaps  to  fear 
from  eight  millions  of  Catholics,  and  from  three  millions  of 
Methodists,  and  more  than  a  million  of  Scotch  seceders.  The 
Church  may  have  something  to  fear  from  the  assault  of 
sectaries  from  without,  and  still  more  to  fear  from  a  sort  of 
spurious  Popery,  and  the  machinations  of  mitred  mutiny  from 
within ;  but  from  the  Synagogue  —  the  neutral,  impartial, 
apathetic,  and  unproselytising  Synagogue — the  Church  has 
nothing  to  apprehend.  But  it  is  said  that  the  House  will 
become  unchristianised.  The  Christianity  of  the  Parlia- 
ment depends  on  the  Christianity  of  the  country ;  and  the 
Christianity  of  the  country  is  fixed  in  the  faith,  and  inseparably 
intertwined  with  the  affections  of  the  people.  It  is  as  stable 
as  England  herself,  and  as  long  as  Parliament  shall  endure, 
while  the  Constitution  shall  stand,  until  the  great  mirror  of  the 
nation's  mind,  shall  have  been  shattered  to  pieces,  the  religious 
feelings  of  the  country  will  be  faithfully  reflected  here.  This 
is  a  security  far  better  than  can  be  supplied  by  a  test  which 
presents  a  barrier  to  an  honest  Jew,  but  which  a  scornful 
sceptic  can  so  readily  and  so  disdainfully  overleap. 

Reference  has  been  made  in  the  course  of  these  discussions 
to  the  author  of  "  The  I  decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Em- 
pire." A  name  still  more  illustrious  might  have  been  cited. 
Was  not  the  famous  St  John — was  not  Bolingbroke,  the  fatally 
accomplished,  the  admiration  of  the  admirable,  to  whom 
genius  paid  an  almost  idolatrous  homage,  and  by  whom  a  sort 
of  fascination  was  exercised  over  all  those  who  had  the  mis- 
fortune to  approach  him -was  not  the  unhappy  sceptic,  by 
Whom   far  more   mischief  to  religion  and    morality  must   have 


R.  L.  Sheil  on  the  Jewish  Disabilities  Bill.  55 

been  done  than  could  be  effected  by  half  a  hundred  of  the 
men  by  whom  the  Old  Testament  is  exclusively  received,  a 
member  of  this  House  ?  Was  he  stopped  by  the  test  that 
arrests  the  Jew ;  or  did  he  not  trample  upon  it  and  ascend 
through  this  House  to  a  sort  of  masterdom  in  England, 
and  become  the  confidential  and  favourite  adviser  of  his 
Sovereign  ?  He  was  not  only  an  avowed  and  ostentatious 
infidel,  but  he  was  swayed  by  a  distempered  and  almost  insane 
solicitude  for  the  dissemination  of  his  disastrous  disbelief.  Is  it 
not  then  preposterous  that  a  man  by  whom  all  revealed  religion 
is  repudiated,  who  doubts  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  doubts 
a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments,  doubts  in  a  super- 
intending Providence,  believes  in  nothing,  fears  nothing,  and 
hopes  for  nothing,  without  any  incentive  to  virtue,  and  without 
any  restraint  upon  depravity  excepting  such  as  a  sense  of  con- 
ventional honour  or  the  promptings  of  a  natural  goodness  may 
have  given  him — is  it  not,  I  say,  preposterous,  and  almost 
monstrous,  that  such  a  man,  for  whom  a  crown  of  deadly 
nightshade  should  be  woven,  should  be  enabled,  by  playing 
the  imposture  of  a  moment  and  uttering  a  valueless  formula  at 
the  table  of  the  House,  to  climb  to  the  pinnacle  of  power ; 
and  that  you  should  slap  the  doors  of  this  House  with  indig- 
nity upon  a  conscientious  man  who  adheres  to  the  faith  in 
which  he  was  born  and  bred  ;  who  believes  in  the  great  facts 
that  constitute  the  foundation  of  Christianity  ;  who  believes 
in  the  perpetual  existence  of  the  nobler  portion  of  our  being  ; 
who  believes  in  future  retribution  and  in  recompense  to  come ; 
who  believes  that  the  world  is  taken  care  of  by  its  almighty 
and  everlasting  Author ;  who  believes  in  the  mercy  of  God, 
and  practises  humanity  to  man  ;  who  fulfils  the  ten  great  in- 
junctions in  which  all  morality  is  comprised  ;  whose  ear  was 
never  deaf  to  the  supplications  of  the  suffering  ;  whose  hand 
is  as  open  as  day  to  charity ;  and  whose  life  presents  an 
exemplification  of  the  precepts  of  the  Gospel  far  more  faithful 
than  that  of  many  a  man  by  whom,  in  the  name  of  the  Gospel, 
his  dishonouring  and  unchristian  disabilities  are  most  wantonly, 


56  Modern  Political  Orations. 

most  injuriously,  and  most  opprobriously  maintained?  But 
where  in  the  Scripture — in  what  chapter,  in  what  text,  in  what 
single  phrase — will  you  find  an  authority  for  resorting  to  the 
infliction  of  temporal  penalty,  or  of  temporal  privation  of  any 
kind,  as  a  means  of  propagating  heavenly  truth  ?  You  may 
find  an  authority,  indeed,  in  the  writings  of  jurists  and  of 
divines,  and  in  the  stern  theology  of  those  austere  and  haughty 
churchmen  by  whom  the  Pharisaical  succession,  far  better 
than  the  Apostolical,  is  personally  and  demonstratively  proved. 
But  you  will  not  find  it  in  the  New  Testament ;  you  will  not 
find  it  in  Matthew,  nor  in  Mark,  nor  in  Luke,  nor  in  John,  nor 
in  the  epistles  of  the  meek  and  humble  men  to  whom  the 
teaching  of  all  nations  was  given  in  charge  ;  above  all,  you 
will  not  find  in  it  anything  that  was  ever  said,  or  anything  that 
was  ever  done,  or  anything  that  was  ever  suffered,  by  the 
Divine  Author  of  the  Christian  religion,  who  spoke  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mountain,  who  said  that  the  merciful  should  be 
blessed,  and  who,  instead  of  ratifying  the  anathema  which 
the  people  of  Jerusalem  had  invoked  upon  themselves,  prayed 
for  forgiveness  for  those  who  knew  not  what  they  did,  in 
consummating  the  Sacrifice  that  was  offered  up  for  the  trans- 
gressions of  the  world. 

It  was  not  by  persecution,  but  despite  of  it — despite  of  im- 
prisonment, and  exile,  and  spoliation,  and  shame,  and  death, 
despite  the  dungeon,  the  wheel,  the  bed  of  steel,  and  the 
couch  of  fire — that  the  Christian  religion  made  its  irresistible 
and  superhuman  way.  And  is  it  not  repugnant  to  common 
reason,  as  well  as  to  the  elementary  principles  of  Christianity 
itself,  to  hold  that  it  is  to  be  maintained  by  means  diametrically 
the  reverse  of  those  by  which  it  was  propagated  and  diffused? 
lint,  alas!  for  our  frail  and  fragile  nature,  no  sooner  had  the 
<>rs  of  Christianity  become  the  co-partners  of  secular 
authority  than  the  severities  were  resorted  to  which  their  pcr- 
■  d  predecessors  had  endured.  The  Jew  was  selected  as 
an  object  of  special  and  peculiar  infliction.  The  history  O. 
that    most  unhappy  people  is,  for  century  after  century,  a  trail 


R.  L.  Shell  on  the  Jewish  Disabilities  Dill.   5  7 

of  chains  and  a  track  of  blood.  Men  of  mercy  occasionally 
arose  to  interpose  in  their  behalf.  St  Bernard— the  great  St 
Bernard,  the  last  of  the  Latin  Fathers — with  a  most  pathetic 
eloquence  took  their  part.  But  the  light  that  gleamed  from 
the  ancient  turrets  of  the  Abbey  of  Clairvaux  was  transitory 
and  evanescent.  New  centuries  of  persecution  followed  ;  the 
Reformation  did  nothing  for  the  Jew.  The  infallibility  of 
Geneva  was  sterner  than  the  infallibility  of  Rome.  But  all  of 
us— Calvinists,  Protestants,  Catholics— all  of  us  who  have  torn 
the  seamless  garment  into  pieces,  have  sinned  most  fearfully 
in  this  terrible  regard. 

It  is,  however,  some  consolation  to  know  that  in  Roman 
Catholic  countries  expiation  of  this  guilt  has  commenced.  In 
France  and  in  Belgium  all  civil  distinction  between  the  Pro- 
testant and  the  Jew  is  at  an  end.  To  this  Protestant  country 
a  great  example  will  not  have  been  vainly  given.  There  did 
exist  in  England  a  vast  mass  of  prejudice  upon  this  question, 
which  is,  however,  rapidly  giving  way.  London,  the  point  of 
Imperial  centralisation,  has  made  a  noble  manifestation  of  its 
will.  London  has  advisedly,  deliberately,  and  with  benevolence 
aforethought,  selected  the  most  prominent  member  of  the 
Jewish  community  as  its  representative,  and  united  him  with 
the  first  Minister  of  the  Crown.  Is  the  Parliament  prepared 
to  fling  back  the  Jew  upon  the  people,  in  order  that  the  people 
should  fling  back  the  Jew  upon  the  Parliament  ?  That  will  be 
a  dismal  game,  in  the  deprecation  of  whose  folly  and  whose 
evils  the  Christian  and  the  statesman  should  concur.  But  not 
only  are  the  disabilities  which  it  is  the  object  of  this  measure 
to  repeal  at  variance  with  genuine  Christianity,  but  I  do  not 
hesitate  to  assert  that  they  operate  as  impediments  to  the 
conversion  of  the  Jews,  and  are  productive  of  consequences 
directly  the  reverse  of  those  for  which  they  were  originally 
designed.  Those  disabilities  are  not  sufficiently  onerous  to  be 
compulsory,  but  they  are  sufficiently  vexatious  to  make  con- 
version a  synonym  lor  apostacy,  and  to  affix  a  stigma  to  an 
interested  conformity  with  the  religion  of  the  State.     We  have 


58  Modern  Political  Orations. 

relieved  the  Jew  from  the  ponderous  mass  of  fetters  that  bound 
him  by  the  neck  and  by  the  feet;  but  the  lines  which  we  have  left, 
apparently  light,  are  strong  enough  to  attach  him  to  his  creed, 
and  make  it  a  point  of  honour  that  he  should  not  desert  it. 

There  exists  in  this  country  a  most  laudable  anxiety  for 
the  conversion  of  the  Jews.  Meetings  are  held,  and  money 
is  largely  subscribed  for  the  purpose ;  but  all  these  creditable 
endeavours  will  be  ineffectual  unless  we  make  a  restitution 
of  his  birthright  to  every  Englishman  who  professes  the 
Jewish  religion.  I  know  that  there  are  those  who  think 
that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  an  English,  or  a  French,  or  a 
Spanish  Jew.  A  Jew  is  but  a  Jew  ;  his  nationality,  it  is  said, 
is  engrossed  by  the  hand  of  recollection  and  of  hope,  and 
the  house  of  Jacob  must  remain  for  ever  in  a  state  of  isolation 
among  the  strange  people  by  whom  it  is  encompassed.  In 
answer  to  these  sophistries  I  appeal  to  human  nature.  It 
is  not  wonderful  that  when  the  Jew  was  oppressed,  and 
pillaged,  and  branded  in  a  captivity  worse  than  Babylonian, 
he  should  have  felt  upon  the  banks  of  the  Thames,  or  of  the 
Seine,  or  the  Danube,  as  his  forefathers  felt  by  the  waters  of  the 
Euphrates,  and  that  the  psalm  of  exile  should  have  found  an 
echo  in  his  heart.  This  is  not  strange ;  it  would  have  been 
strange  if  it  had  been  otherwise;  but  justice — even  partial 
justice— has  already  operated  a  salutary  change. 

In  the  same  measure  in  which  we  have  relaxed  the  laws 
against  the  Jews,  that  patriot  instinct  by  which  we  are  taught 
to  love  the  land  of  our  birth  has  been  revived.  British  feeling 
has  already  taken  root  in  the  heart  of  the  Jew,  and  for  its 
perfect  development  nothing  but  perfect  justice  is  required. 
To  the  fallacies  of  fanaticism  give  no  heed.  Emancipate  the 
Jew— from  the  Statute-book  of  England  be  the  last  remnant 
of  intolerance  erased  forever;  abolish  all  civil  discriminations 
between  the  Christian  and  the  Jew,  fill  his  whole  heart  with 
the  <  onsciousness  of  country.  Do  this,  and  we  dan'  be  sworn 
that  he  will  think,  and  feel,  and  fear,  and  hope  as  you  do; 
his  sorrow  and  his  exultation   will  be  the  same  ;  at  the  tidings 


R.  L.  Sheil  on  the  Jewish  Disabilities  Bill.   59 

of  English  glory  his  heart  will  beat  with  a  kindred  palpitation, 
and  whenever  there  shall  be  need,  in  the  defence  of  his 
Sovereign  and  of  his  country,  his  best  blood,  at  your  bidding, 
will  be  poured  out  with  the  same  heroic  prodigality  as  your 
own. 


ALEXANDER   COCKBURN1   ON    THE 
GREEK    DIFFICULTY. 

House  of  Commons,  June  28th,  1850. 

[WHAT  was  known  about  this  time  as  the  celebrated  "  Don  Pacifico  Case  " 
originated  as  follows  : — Don  Pacifico,  a  Jew,  of  Portuguese  extract  inn,  was 
a  native  of  Gibraltar,  and  therefore  a  British  subject.  He  resided  at 
Athens,  where  it  was  a  time-honoured  custom  to  bum  an  effigy  of  Judas 
Iscariot  at  Easter.  The  police  prevented  this  celebration  in  1847,  where- 
upon the  mob,  attributing  the  action  to  the  influence  of  the  Jews,  wrecked 
their  resentment  upon  Don  Pacifico.  whose  house  stood  close  to  the 
spot  annually  chosen  for  the  burning  of  Judas.  His  claim  against  the 
Creek  Government,  side  by  side  with  that  of  Mr  Finlay,  being  ignored, 
the  British  Government  took  upon  itself  to  redress  the  wrongs  of  its 
subjects.] 

I  think,  Sir,  as  I  was  personally  and  pointedly  alluded  to 
in  the  course  of  the  debate  last  night  by  the  right  hon.  the 
Member  for  the  University  of  Oxford  (Mr  Gladstone),  that 
tin-  House  will  not  consider  me  presumptuous  if  I  trespass  for 
a  short  time  upon  its  patience.  I  am  anxious,  Sir,  in  the  first 
place,  if  the  House  will  indulge  me  for  a  moment,  to  set 
myself  right  with  the  right  hon.  gentleman.  He  was  pleased, 
in  the  course  of  his  observations  in  the  House  last  night,  to 
say  that  I  had  "sneered"  at  him.  Now,  I  beg  to  assure  the 
right  hon.  gentleman  and  the  House  that  nothing  on  earth  was 
further  from  my  wishes  or  intentions  than  to  show  him  the 
slightest  disrespect  or  discourtesy.     The  right  hon.  gentleman, 

1  Afterwards  Lord  Chief-Justice  of  England. 


Alexander  Cockbum  on  the  Greek  Difficulty.    6 1 

with  his  accustomed  talent,  threw  down  the  gauntlet  on  the 
floor  of  this  House,  and  challenged  a  reply  from  any  hon. 
member  to  the  facts  which  he  stated,  or  to  the  principles  of 
law  which  he  then  enunciated.  I  felt,  Sir,  at  the  time,  as  truly 
and  as  fully  convinced  as  I  ever  was  of  anything  in  my  life, 
that  the  right  hon.  gentleman's  facts  were  totally  inaccurate, 
and  that  his  law  was  utterly  intolerable.  I  ventured,  therefore, 
to  accept  the  challenge  which  he  so  threw  out,  and  I  meant 
by  my  cheer  on  that  occasion — a  mode  which  I  believe  to  be 
a  perfectly  parliamentary  one  of  expressing  that  sentiment — to 
say  that  I  was  ready  and  anxious  to  accept  the  challenge  of 
the  right  hon.  gentleman,  and  I  am  now  prepared  to  answer 
him,  although  I  am  fully  conscious  of  the  vast  difference  of 
ability  and  disparity  of  power  which  exists  between  us;  for 
the  right  hon.  gentleman,  from  his  position,  his  high  character, 
and  above  all,  his  great  abilities,  is  entitled  to  be  treated  with 
the  utmost  respect  by  every  member  of  this  House. 

Having  thus  put  myself  right  with  the  right  hon.  gentleman, 
I  must  take  the  liberty  of  saying  this,  that  in  all  my  experi- 
ence I  never  heard  such  a  series  of  misrepresentations  and 
mis-statements  as  those  which  were  made  by  the  right  hon. 
gentleman  ;  and  I  will  undertake  to  prove  this  assertion,  step 
by  step,  and  position  by  position,  if  the  House  will  grant  me 
its  indulgence  and  forbearance.  I  feel,  however,  the  great 
difficult}  in  which  I  am  placed  in  entering  upon  this  debate. 
If  I  go  into  the  details  of  the  case  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
the  fallacies,  both  in  the  statements  and  arguments  of  the 
right  hon.  gentlemen,  I  shall  be  told,  by  and  by,  because  I 
have  the  misfortune  of  belonging  to  a  legal  profession,  that  it 
was  a  nisi prius  mode -of  conducting  my  argument.  I  think, 
however,  that  the  manner  in  which  the  discussion  of  this 
subject  has  been  conducted,  both  in  this  House  and  in  another 
place,  has  given  us  abundant  evidence  that  it  is  not  those  only 
who  practise  in  Westminster  Hall  who  are  possessed  of  the 
power  of  arguing  in  nisi  prius  fashion.  For  of  all  the  pettifog- 
ging proceedings  which  I  have  ever  known  during  my  experi- 


62  Modem  Political  Orations. 

ence,  this  is  the  worst.  It  was  so  commenced  elsewhere,  and 
in  the  same  spirit  it  has  been  conducted  here.  If  hon. 
gentlemen  choose  to  introduce  this  subject  to  Parliament,  and 
make  a  grave  accusation  against  Her  Majesty's  Government, 
and  then  conduct  it,  not  upon  the  great  principles  of  natural 
honour,  but  by  raising  questions  of  minute  details  and 
technicalities,  by  grossly  perverting  facts  and  distorting 
evidence,  and  by  an  utter  misrepresentation  of  what  were  the 
true  principles  that  ought  to  govern  this  case,  let  them  not  be 
astonished  if  those  who  belong  to  the  legal  profession,  whose 
habits  are  to  criticise  and  investigate  with  logical  strictness 
every  species  of  evidence,  to  minutely  analyse  facts  as  well  as 
study  the  broad  principles  of  municipal  and  national  law,  stung 
to  the  quick  by  the  manifest  injustice  of  this  proceeding, 
should  rush  into  tfie  discussion  ;  and  above  all,  let  not  the 
charge  come  from  them,  that  the  men  having  these  acquire- 
ments are  treating  the  subject  in  a  nisi  prius  spirit. 

I  am  now  speaking  for  the  interest  of  my  profession ;  and  I 
must  say  that  I  never  heard  an  observation  more  ungracious, 
or  made  in  worse  taste,  than  that  which  fell  from  the  right 
hon.  baronet  the  member  for  Ripon  (Sir  F.  Graham), 
following,  as  it  did,  on  the  admirable  speech  of  my  hon. 
and  learned  friend,  the  member  for  Oxford  (Mr  William  Page 
Wood),  than  which,  a  more  masterly  analysis  of  facts,  and  a 
more  convincing  speech  in  point  of  argument  and  of  law,  I 
never  heard.  It  certainly  never  was  surpassed  in  this  House 
or  in  any  other  place.  It  altogether  demolished  the  whole 
case  against  the  Government  in  all  that  respected  Greece. 
And  yet,  the  right  hon.  baronet,  because  he  found  he  was 
unable  to  grapple  with  the  arguments  of  my  hon.  and 
learned  friend,  nor  even  tried  to  do  so,  said:  "Oh,  it  is 
not  fair  to  deal  with  this  great  question  upon  such  narrow 
ground,  or  with  refer*  rice  to  the  case  of  Greece  alone — it  is  .ill 

founded  upon  blue  1 1    .  a  pack  of  rubbish;  mere  nisi  prius. 

i  ii.  come  to  that  which  is  the  great  issue  to  be  decided 
by  the  House,  the  foreign  policy  of  the  Government."     Now, 


Alexander  Cockburn  on  the  Greek  Difficulty.   6$ 

that  certainly  strikes  me  as  being  a  \ery  odd  position  for 
the  right  hon.  baronet  to  take,  when  it  is  considered  that 
the  verdict  which  has  been  passed  by  the  other  House  of 
Parliament  against  Her  Majesty's  Government,  and  in  conse- 
quence of  which  verdict  they  are  requested  to  resign,  proceeded 
entirely,  not  upon  the  question  of  the  general  policy  of  the 
Government,  but  exclusively  and  distinctly  upon  the  line 
pursued  by  them  in  respect  of  Greece.  The  right  hon. 
baronet  then  went  into  the  whole  of  the  foreign  policy  of  the 
country,  leaving  out  of  view  the  whole  of  the  (keek  case. 
The  right  hon.  baronet  was  followed  by  the  right  hon. 
gentleman  for  South  Wiltshire  (Mr  Sidney  Herbert),  and  he 
followed  exactly  in  the  same  track,  threw  the  Greek  question 
overboard,  and  took  his  stand  upon  the  foreign  policy  of  the 
Government.  Then  came  the  right  hon.  gentleman  the 
member  for  the  University  of  Oxford,  whom  I  suppose,  we  are 
now  to  consider  as  the  representative  of  Lord  Stanley  in  this 
House  :  "  Gladstone  vice  Disraeli,"  am  I  to  say,  resigned  or 
superseded  ? 

There  are,  therefore,  two  questions  before  the  House.  The 
right  hon.  baronet,  the  member  for  Ripon,  and  the  right 
hon.  member  for  South  Wiltshire,  boldly  come  forward 
and  take  up  the  question  of  the  whole  foreign  policy  of  the 
Government ;  while  the  right  hon.  gentleman  the  member 
for  the  University  of  Oxford,  arguing  his  case  upon  the  nisi 
prius  style,  takes  his  stand  upon  the  Greek  question  only. 
Which  of  these  two  different  positions  is  the  House  to  con- 
sider? Is  it  the  right  hon.  baronet  the  member  for  Ripon, 
or  that  of  the  right  hon.  gentleman  the  member  for  the 
University  of  Oxford  ?  It  is  a  matter  of  perfect  indifference 
to  me.  I  am  prepared  to  go  into  both.  But  I  must  say  this, 
that  I  do  not  think,  if  you  sever  your  cases  for  the  prosecution, 
if  the  hon.  gentlemen  will  allow  me  to  use  so  technical  a 
phrase,  and  shift  the  ground  of  your  accusation  from  one  point 
to  the  other,  I  claim  as  a  right  that  we  may  be  fairly  heard 
upon  both .     And  do  not  tell  us  when  we  meet  you  on  the 


64  Modern  Political  Orations. 

Greek  case,  that  it  is  all  mere  nisi  prius,  but  allow  us  to  show 
you  what  the  facts  are,  and  what  the  nature  of  your  arguments, 
and  I  will  undertake  to  say  that  we  will  demolish  your  whole 
case,  nor  leave  you  a  leg  to  stand  upon. 

Her  Majesty's  Government  have,  it  appears,  interfered  in  the 
affairs  of  Greece  for  the  purpose  of  redressing  certain  wrongs 
sustained  by  the  subjects  of  this  Empire  ;  and  the  point  in 
dispute  is  whether  they  were  justified  in  the  course  which  they 
took  upon  that  occasion.  Now,  as  it  is  impossible  to  dispute 
that  in  this  instance  the  subjects  of  Her  Majesty  have  sustained 
wrong— a  fact  which  no  one  has  attempted  to  deny— they  were 
most  unquestionably  entitled  to  redress  from  the  Government 
of  the  country  in  which  they  happened  to  be  at  the  time  they 
sustained  such  wrong  ;  but  if  the  laws  of  that  country  where 
the  wrongs  were  perpetrated  afforded  no  means  of  redress,  they 
became  unquestionably  entitled  to  redress  from  the  Government 
of  that  country ;  and  if  the  Government  would  not  redress 
those  wrongs,  it  was  not  only  the  right,  but  the  bounden  duty 
of  the  Government  of  this  country  to  interfere  on  behalf  of  its 
subjects,  and  to  obtain  redress  for  the  wrongs  which  they  had 
suffered.  I  take  it  to  be  a  fundamental  principle  in  the  policy 
of  nations  that  it  is  the  right  and  duty  of  a  State  to  protect  its 
subjects  against  injuries  sustained  at  the  hands  of  other  States, 
or  subjects  of  such  States.  This  has  been  the  principle  upon 
which  nations  have  acted  in  all  ages.  The  noble  Lord  who 
addressed  the  Mouse  the  other  night  (Lord  Palmerston)  referred 
to  the  great  principle  that  the  Roman  State  never  allowed  a 
Roman  citizen  to  be  injured.  But  what  said  the  right  hon. 
member  for  the  University  of  Oxford  to  that?  He  said  that  it 
was  because  Rome  exercised  a  universal  dominion  over  the 
world;  because  it  considered  a  Roman  citizen  as  superior  to 
the  subjects  of  all  Other  Stales,  and  by  its  universal  supremacy 
and  power  was  enabled  to  tyrannise  over  other  countries,  and 
obtain  redress  for  the  wrongs  sustained  by  its  citizens  even  in 
cases  when  they  were  not  entitled  to  such  redress.  I  dissent 
from  that  position  altogether.     I  say  that  it  was  not  after  the 


A lexander  Cockburn  on  the  Greek  Difficulty.    65 

Roman  Empire  had  become  established,  and  had  obtained  its 
supremacy  over  the  whole  world,  that  that  position  was  first 
taken  up  by  the  Roman  Stale.  It  was  a  principle  upon  which 
it  acted  from  the  very  earliest  ages  of  the  Empire,  and  therefore 
it  was  that  the  great  orator  was  entitled  triumphantly  to  exclaim, 
with  all  the  noble  pride  and  triumph  of  a  Roman,  "  Quot  bella 
majores  nostri  suscepti  erint,  quot  cives  Rotnani  injuria  affecti 
sunt,  navicularii  retcnti,  wercatorcs  spoliaii,  esse  dicerentur."  It 
was  not  only  before  they  had  established  universal  dominion 
over  the  world  that  they  adopted  this  principle,  but  it  was  at  a 
period  of  their  history  when  they  had  to  fight  their  battles  for 
empire  with  other  States  upon  almost  equal  terms,  that  they 
invariably  asserted  that  first  right  and  duty  of  a  State  to  protect 
its  citizens,  and  to  obtain  redress  for  their  wrongs,  when  they 
sustained  any  at  the  hands  of  other  States.  That  course,  I  take 
it,  was  not  unknown  to  this  country  either  in  one  of  the  most 
glorious  periods  of  its  history.  What  is  it  that,  in  spite  of  all 
the  dark  shades  that  rest  upon  his  character,  has  made  the 
memory  of  Cromwell  illustrious  ?  What,  but  that  he  would 
suffer  no  Englishman  to  be  injured  by  any  State  or  potentate, 
no  matter  how  great  ?  But,  after  all,  can  the  proposition  be 
denied  that  the  Government  of  a  country  is  bound  to  obtain 
redress  for,  and  to  afford  protection  to  its  citizens  when  injured  ? 
The  right  hon.  gentleman  the  member  for  the  University  of 
Oxford  did  not  dispute  that  position ;  but  he  qualified  it  by 
saying  that  British  subjects  living  in  foreign  States,  and  sustaining 
any  wrong  there,  either  from  the  Government  of  the  country  or 
any  of  the  subjects  of  that  State,  are  bound  to  have  recourse  to 
the  tribunals  of  the  country  for  redress,  and  if  redress  can  be 
obtained  from  such  tribunals,  they  are  not  to  call  upon  the 
country  of  which  they  are  the  subjects  to  interfere.  I  cheer- 
fully assent  to  that  proposition,  and  I  will  undertake  to  make 
it  perfectly  manifest  that  in  neither  of  the  cases  which  have  led 
to  the  interference  cf  this  country  was  there  the  slightest  or 
most  remote  probability — looking  to  the  law  of  Greece,  and  the 
condition  of  its  tribunals — that  any  English  subject,  however 


66  Modern  Political  Orations. 

injured,  could  succeed  in  obtaining  redress  from  the  tribunals 
of  that  country. 

Now  I  will  take  in  the  first  place  the  case  of  Mr  Finlay.  I 
do  not  intend  to  cite  Blue-Books  upon  this  subject — the  whole 
matter  is  capable  of  being  placed  before  the  House  in  a  very 
short  and  succinct  form.  Mr  Finlay,  it  appears,  was  the 
proprietor  of  some  land  in  Athens.  That  gentleman,  with 
some  other  inhabitants  at  Athens,  was  anxious,  when  King 
Otho  was  in  possession  of  the  actual  sovereignty  of  Greece,  to 
induce  the  king  to  fix  the  seat  of  Government  at  Athens;  and 
accordingly,  Mr  Finlay,  with  those  other  inhabitants,  presented 
a  memorial  to  the  Government  of  Greece  proposing  to  give  or 
sell  the  land  which  belonged  to  them  to  the  Government  upon 
certain  terms,  in  order  that  it  might  be  made  applicable  for  the 
establishment  of  the  necessary  public  buildings  in  Athens,  with 
the  view  of  inducing  the  Government  to  fix  it  there.  But  they 
coupled  their  offer  of  the  land  with  these  conditions,  that  the 
land  to  be  taken  should  be  scheduled  and  set  out  within  six 
months  from  the  time  of  taking  possession  of  it.  When  the 
Government  came  to  Athens,  the  land  of  many  of  the  individuals 
which  had  been  thus  offered  to  the  Government  was  taken. 
Mr  1  inlay's  land,  however,  was  not  so  taken.  The  land 
taken  by  the  Greek  Government  of  the  other  individuals  was 
paid  for  according  to  a  price  which  the  parties  had  agreed 
upon;  and  it  is  easy  to  understand  that  the  inhabitants  of  a  city 
like  Athens,  possessing  property,  and  being  desirous  of  bringing 
the  Government  to  Athens,  should  be  perfectly  willing  to 
dispose  of  a  portion  of  their  land  at  a  lower  rate,  if  by  so  doing 
they  could  attain  their  object,  as  the  existence  of  the  Govern- 
ment at  Athens  would  have  the  effect  of  enhancing  the  value 
of  the  remainder  of  their  property.  Mr  Kinlay's  land  was 
not,  however,  taken  upon  this  ground  ;  it  was  taken  some  time 
after  by  the  arbitrary  command  of  the  King,  without  law  or 
ordinance,  or  without  anything  whatever  which  could  give  a 
saiM  tion  to  such  a  proceeding — nothing  except  the  arbitrary  and 
absolute  will  of  the  Sovereign. 


Alexander  Cockburn  on  the  Greek  Difficulty,    67 

That  is  a  matter  of  fact  upon  which  I  defy  any  man  to 
dispute.  That  being  done,  what  was  the  consequence?  Mr 
Finlay's  land  was  taken  and  converted  into  the  palace  garden 
of  the  King.  Mr  Finlay  applied  for  compensation  in  1836; 
and  according  to  the  statement  of  Sir  Edmund  Lyons  — 
who,  I  apprehend,  notwithstanding  the  insinuations  of  the 
right  hon.  gentleman  the  member  for  the  University  of 
Oxford,  is  in  every  way  worthy  of  credit — the  proceedings  of 
Mr  Finlay  towards  the  Greek  Government  were  characterised 
by  the  most  gentlemanly  moderation  and  forbearance ;  yet  for 
six  long  years  (until  1842)  Mr  Finlay  continued,  from  time  to 
time,  to  put  forward  kindly  and  temperately  his  demand  for 
compensation.  Do  you  tell  me  that  the  delay  arose  from  any 
dispute  as  to  the  amount  of  compensation  which  should  be 
given  to  that  gentleman  ?  He  could  not  obtain  even  the 
slightest  answer  to  his  communications.  But  in  1842,  when 
this  injustice  became  too  grievous  to  be  patiently  borne  any 
longer,  Mr  Finlay  addressed  the  noble  Lord  who  was  at  the 
head  of  foreign  affairs  of  this  country — not  the  present  Lord, 
but  the  Earl  of  Aberdeen — who  instructed  Sir  Edmund  Lyons 
to  apply  to  the  Greek  Government,  and  to  enforce  by  all  means 
in  his  power  the  legitimate  demands  of  Mr  Finlay.  "What 
was  the  result?  After  a  great  deal  of  difficulty  and  delay,  the 
King  of  Greece  proposed  to  issue  a  Commission  to  inquire  into 
the  claims  of  Mr  Finlay.  But  of  whom  was  it  proposed  that 
the  Commission  should  consist  ?  Of  M.  Glarakis  and  M. 
Manitaki,  the  Minister  of  the  Interior.  One  of  these  persons 
was  a  most  remarkable  character ;  and  Sir  Edward  Codrington, 
speaking  of  him  in  a  public  despatch,  said  that  he  was  a  man 
who  had  made  himself  notorious  by  fostering  and  encourag- 
ing pirates.  The  other  was  a  mere  creature  of  the  King,  and 
would  have  acted  if  appointed  on  the  part  of  the  King. 

Mr  Finlay  therefore  objected  to  this  Commission.  Further 
communications  took  place,  and  no  redress  could  be  obtained. 
This  was  in  1845.  Now  a  Commission  thus  constituted  Mr 
Finlay  was  justified  in  repudiating.       He  said  very  truly,  "It 


68  Modern  Political  Orations. 

is  not  an  inspired  tribunal ;  I  can  place  no  confidence  in  it ; 
I  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  it,  but  will  appeal  to  the 
Government  at  home."  He  did  so,  and  the  present  noble  Lord, 
then  at  the  head  of  Foreign  Affairs,  having  inquired  into  the 
matter,  a  despatch  was  sent  to  Sir  Edmund  Lyons,  instructing 
him  to  enforce  the  claims  of  Mr  Finlay.  The  King  proposed 
another  Commission,  which  was  appointed,  and  in  the  end, 
after  all  these  years  of  evasion,  shuffling,  quirks,  and  chicanery 
of  every  description,  it  was  agreed  to  refer  the  matter  to  arbi- 
tration. At  first  the  Greek  Government  had  the  assurance  to 
propose  that  it  should  have  the  nomination  of  the  umpire ;  but 
being  shamed  out  of  this  extravagant  proposal,  a  proper  umpire 
was  appointed.  What  was  the  next  trick  they  resorted  to? 
Why,  they  delayed  the  production  of  the  necessary  documents 
beyond  the  period  of  three  months,  within  which  period,  by 
the  law  of  Greece,  an  arbitration  must  be  concluded  or  it  falls 
to  the  ground.  The  right  hon.  gentleman  (Mr  Gladstone) 
has  stated  that  the  delay  had  originated  with  Mr  Finlay ;  but 
this  is  not  so  ;  the  Blue-Book  proves  directly  the  contrary.  It 
was  the  Government  who  asked  for  the  delay.  Now  was  this 
fair  of  the  right  hon.  gentleman  ?  Talk  of  nisi  prii/s,  indeed  ! 
At  least  lawyers  hold  this  at  nisi  prius — that  though  they 
may  use  sophistry  to  induce  a  jury  or  a  court  to  adopt  their 
conclusions,  it  is  a  sacred  duty  not  to  mis-state  facts. 

Well,  then,  Mr  Finlay  could  get  no  redress  ;  but  the  right 
hon.  gentleman  the  member  for  the  University  of  Oxford  says, 
he  might  have  gone  to  the  tribunals  of  the  country.  The 
tribunals  of  the  country,  indeed  !  They  say,  "a  little  learning 
is  a  dangerous  thing";  but  this  is  equally  the  case  when 
applied  to  law.  The  right  hon.  gentleman  possesses  every 
quality  which  would  have  made  a  most  brilliant  advocate.  He 
has  eloquence  unlimited,  subtlety  unrivalled,  casuistry  un- 
exampled; all  he  wants  is  a  little  knowledge  of  law.  If  he 
had  not  been  a  greal  statesman,  he  would  have  been  a  great 
lawyer  if  he  only  would  have  condescended  to  put  on  the 
wig  and  gown,  and  acquired  a  little  knowledge  of  the  very  first 


Alexander  Cockburn  on  Ike  Greek  Difficulty.    69 

principles  of  law.  I  would  advise  him,  if  he  would  accept  of 
my  humble  advice,  to  confine  himself  to  that  science  of  which 
he  is  so  great  a  master — politics,  and  not  to  meddle  with  law. 
The  right  hon.  gentleman  is  ignorant  of  the  fundamental 
principle  of  law  —  that  a  subject  cannot  sue  a  Sovereign. 
That  is  the  rule  in  every  country,  with  the  exception  of  this. 
And  why  is  it  not  the  law  in  England  ?  Simply  because,  by  the 
established  usage  and  magnanimous  practice  of  this  country, 
the  Sovereign,  upon  the  petition  of  a  subject  complaining  of 
a  wrong  sustained  from  the  Crown,  refers  it  to  the  first  law 
officer  of  the  Crown,  and  indorses  upon  the  petition  the  import- 
ant and  solemn  words,  "  Let  right  be  done."  And  upon  that, 
the  Sovereign  condescends  to  submit  herself  to  an  equality 
with  her  subjects  before  the  throne  of  law,  and  allow  justice  to 
be  administered  between  her  and  the  meanest  of  her  subjects 
by  the  ordinary  tribunals  of  the  land.  And,  thank  God  !  that 
we  have  tribunals,  and  that  we  have  judges,  who  would 
administer  the  law  between  the  Sovereign  and  her  subjects 
with  so  much  impartiality,  with  as  even  a  hand,  and  with  as  un- 
biassed a  mind,  as  between  any  two  ordinary  persons.  But  is  that 
the  case  in  Greece  ?  No !  I  ask.  then,  what  becomes  of  the 
position  that  Mr  Finlay  could  have  appealed  to  the  tribunals  of 
the  country  against  the  King  of  Greece?  The  King  of  Greece 
is  utterly  irresponsible,  not  only  politically,  but  civilly,  to  any 
of  his  subjects,  and  you  can  only  seek  redress,  if  you  have 
sustained  any  injury,  against  the  officers  of  State.  In  this  case, 
however,  the  officers  of  State  were  not  responsible,  because  this 
matter  had  occurred  before  the  Constitution  by  which  alone 
even  they  became  responsible,  and  were  called  into  power. 
With  respect,  therefore,  to  the  claim  of  Mr  Finlay,  I  think 
that  case  is  pretty  well  disposed  of. 

I  now  come  to  M.  Pacifico,  and  I  rejoice  that  we  shall  be 
able  to  discuss  that  case  on  its  merits,  and  not  on  the  ground 
of  M.  Pacifico  being  a  Jew  or  a  usurer,  or,  as  it  was  ungener- 
ously suggested,  and  when  he  could  not  defend  himself,  a 
delinquent,  who  had  committed  an  act  of  forgery.     All  these 


■jo  Modern  Political  Orations. 

questions  are  utterly  beside  the  one  at  issue.  And  here,  sir, 
let  me  say  that  I  never  felt  stronger  indignation  than  when 
I  read  the  observations,  as  to  who  and  what  M.  Pacifico  was 
and  is,  which  have  been  repeated  over  and  over  again  in  that 
portion  of  the  Press  devoted  to  the  interests  of  Russian 
despotism,  and  which  have  been  spoken  over  and  over  again 
by  certain  Lords,  who  come  forward  either  for  their  own  behoof 
or  that  of  Continental  tyrants.  According  to  these  authorities, 
M.  Pacifico  is  a  species  of  Jew  broker,  a  Jew  usurer,  a  Jew 
trafficker,  a  hybrid  Jew.  And  then,  sir,  forsooth,  we  are  told 
in  the  same  breath  as  that  in  which  such  phrases  are  employed, 
that  they  are  not  used  to  prejudice  the  individual  to  whom  they 
are  applied!  For  what  purpose  then,  I  ask,  are  they  used? 
Why,  sir,  even  at  nisi prius  we  should  not  stoop  to  such  shabby 
artifices  as  these.  Even  lawyers  would  not  resort  to  such  mean 
and  dirty  acts  as  these;  they  would  not  think  themselves 
justified  in  saying  that,  on  a  man  sustaining  a  civil  wrong  and 
demanding  justice,  the  question  was  to  be  tried  by  his  char- 
acter ;  yet  that  has  been  done  again  and  again  to  prejudice 
this  case.  However,  the  right  hon.  gentleman,  in  taking 
the  place  of  those  who  had  carried  on  this  accusation  against 
the  Government  elsewhere,  thought  it  necessary  to  protect 
himself  from  being  supposed  to  take  any  part  in  such  acts  as 
these.  But  the  right  hon.  gentleman  has  pursued  the 
course  followed  elsewhere  of  making  the  most  of  the  abused 
extravagance  of  M.  l'acifico's  demand.  But  I  will  show  the 
House  that  the  amount  of  compensation  claimed  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  question,  and  for  this  simple  reason,  it  never 
was  a  matter  of  dispute  with  the  Creek  Government.  The 
objection  which  the  Greek  Government  took  was  to  the 
principle  of  the  demand,  not  to  its  amount.  The  dispute 
er  advanced  as  far  as  to  have  anything  to  do  with  the 
amount. 

for  the  wrongs  inflicted  on  M.  Pacifico,  I  need  not  dwell 
upon  them.  They  are  known  to  all  the  world.  The  man  was 
outraged  in  his  person,  in  his  family,  and  in  his  property.      The 


Alexander  Cockbum  on  the  Greek  Difficulty.    7 1 

question  then  is  —  Was  he  entitled  to  redress?  He  may 
be  a  Jew,  a  broker,  a  usurer,  a  hybrid  Jew  —  he  may 
have  committed  an  act  of  forgery.  It  is  possible — although 
God  forbid  that  I  should  believe  such  a  charge  against 
any  man  without  the  opportunity  of  answering  it  ! — he  may 
have  been  a  forger;  it  did  not  lie  in  the  mouth  of  the 
Portuguese  Government  to  say  so,  after  having  appointed  him 
consul — first  at  Morocco,  and  then  at  Athens  ;  but  for  all  that 
he  was  injured,  and  therefore  entitled  to  redress.  Now,  what 
are  the  known  facts  as  to  his  position?  He  had  been  living 
at  Athens  for  many  years  in  comfort  and  respectability  —  a 
substantial  citizen,  carrying  on  his  business  with  the  Greek 
people.  Well,  he  was  grievously  injured.  The  right  hon. 
gentleman  said  he  ought  to  have  gone  before  the  Greek 
tribunals.  What  tribunals  ?  He  did  go  before  one.  He  tried 
to  proceed  in  a  Criminal  Court — with  what  success  we  know. 
A  crime  had  been  committed  in  the  broad  daylight,  at  noon, 
in  the  midst  of  Athens.  The  perpetrators  were  seen  and  well 
known.  They  were  denounced  to  the  police  ;  and  the  police, 
in  reply,  contended  that  there  was  no  evidence  to  fix  their 
identity,  and  so  let  them  loose  again.  So  much  for  the 
honour  and  honesty  of  Greek  tribunals.  But  the  right  hon. 
gentleman  says,  why  did  he  not  go  before  a  civil  tribunal? 
Why  did  he  not  sue  the  rioters  for  damages  ?  Good  God ! 
Is  it  possible  that  the  right  hon.  gentleman  can  be  in 
earnest  ?  Does  he  really  consider  us  so  weak,  so  fallible,  as  to 
be  likely  to  swallow  an  obvious,  a  palpable,  or  gross  absurdity 
such  as  that  ?  What !  seek  for  compensation  from  a  mob — 
from  a  rabble  of  brigands,  vagabonds  and  ruffians,  in  rags  and 
tatters,  who  wrecked  his  house  and  stole  his  furniture  ?  Is  he 
to  proceed  for  damages  against  such  a  horde  as  this?  Let 
me  ask  the  House — let  me  ask  the  right  hon.  gentleman  this 
question :  Suppose  that,  in  some  time  of  trouble  and  popular 
excitement,  a  mob  were  to  sack  his  house,  as  the  mob  sacked 
M.  Pacifico's,  would  he  bring  an  action  against  each  and  every 
member  of  that  mob  ?     We  have  had  instances  of  such  riots 


7 '2  Modem  Political  Orations. 


taking  place,  I  think.  Nottingham  Castle  was  destroyed.  It 
belonged  to  the  Duke  of  Newcastle.  Did  he  prosecute  the 
mob  for  damages  ?  The  Marquis  of  Londonderry's  house  in 
St  James'  Square  was  attacked  and  damaged.  Did  he  prosecute 
the  mob  for  damages?  The  palace  of  the  Bishop  at  Bristol 
was  burnt  down,  and  property  to  a  great  extent  destroyed. 
Did  he  prosecute  the  mob  for  damages  ?  No ;  you  don't 
proceed  against  paupers.  There  is  nothing  to  be  got  out  of 
them. 

Observe  the  difference  between  Greece  and  this  country. 
England,  with  wiser  legislation,  proceeding  on  the  principle  that 
for  injuries  done  in  times  of  tumult,  it  is  idle  to  leave  the 
people  to  a  remedy  by  civil  action  against  the  parties  com- 
miting  them,  provides  this  wise  regulation  :  that  in  the  case  of 
such  injuries  the  local  community,  the  hundred,  should  be 
responsible  for  the  property  which  has  been  demolished.  If, 
however,  the  property  fall  under  a  certain  category  for  which 
the  hundred  is  not  liable,  the  Government  is  nevertheless  bound 
to  make  the  loss  good,  so  that  no  owner  of  property  need 
suffer  from  the  lawless  violence  of  mobs,  which  it  is  the  business 
of  the  executive  to  keep  in  order.1  If,  then,  this  state  of  things 
had  existed  in  Athens  —  if  M.  Pacifico  could  have  claimed 
redress  from  the  Greek  tribunals,  he  was  no  doubt  bound  to 
go  there.  But  I  say  he  could  not.  It  is  idle  to  assert  that  he 
could.  The  right  hon.  gentleman  tells  us  that  there  are  courts 
of  law  in  Greece,  that  there  is  a  regular  bar  there,  always  ready 
to  undertake  the  case  of  anybody  applying  to  them.  Is  there? 
Stop  a  minute.  M.  Pacifico  having  been  attacked  a  second 
time,  and  having  made  his  complaint,  the  noble  Lord  at  the 
!  of  tin  Foreign  Office  instructed  Sir  Edmund  Lyons  to 
institute  a  prosecution  against  the  parties  who  had  committed 
the  outrage.  What  was  the  result  ?  The  offending  parties  had 
actually  been  apprehended,  when  M.  Pacifico  was  told  that  he 

1  A  modern  instance  of  the  working  <>f  iliis  principle  «ms  the  compensa- 
b]   th(    G  ni  to  the  sufferers  by  the  Socialist  Riots  in 

Ihe  West-end  •  >!  London  in  I  ebruary,  ii>So. 


Alexander  Cockburn  on  t/ie  Greek  Difficulty.    7 


•7 


could  not  get  a  lawyer  to  bring  his  case  on,  and  that  such  was 
the  strict  compulsion  under  which  the  Courts  were  kept,  that 
they  did  not  dare  to  place  themselves  in  opposition  to  the 
Prime  Minister  of  the  country. 

But,  says  the  right  hon.  gentleman,  the  judges  at  Athens 
administer  justice  impartially  and  fairly.  There  is  a  court 
called  the  Areopagus,  and  its  judges  are  perfectly  free  to 
act  according  to  the  dictates  of  their  conscience.  Let  me 
tell  the  right  hon.  gentleman  that  he  never  laboured  under 
a  more  complete  mistake.  The  Constitution  undoubtedly 
provides  that  the  judges  shall  not  be  dismissed  at  the  King's 
pleasure;  but  they  are  so  dismissed  every  day.  And  not  only 
that,  but  the  Greek  Government  have  established  this  system — 
and  it  shows  their  Greek  subtlety,  as  they  have  a  number  of 
courts  of  equal  jurisdiction  and  authority — they  transplant  the 
judges  from  one  to  the  other,  as  the  purpose  of  each  case  may 
seem  to  require.  When  a  particular  case  which  the  Govern- 
ment is  interested  in  bringing  to  a  particular  decision  occurs  in 
a  court,  why  then  they  transplant  the  judge  on  whom  they  can 
depend  into  that  court.  Let  me  cite  an  instance.  An  action 
was  brought  by  M.  Piscatori,  the  French  Ambassador  at 
Athens,  against  the  editor  of  a  newspaper  published  there — the 
Athena.  This  was  in  1846.  M.  Piscatori  was,  of  course,  all- 
powerful  with  the  Government.  Well,  the  sentence  was  against 
the  editor.  Two  of  the  judges  pronounced  for  his  acquittal ; 
three  for  his  condemnation.  One  of  the  former,  called,  I 
believe,  Disachi,  was  summarily  dismissed,  in  the  following 
curt  terms  :  "The  King  has  been  pleased  to  remove  you  from 
the  bench."  Well,  the  editor  appealed  to  the  Court  of  the 
Areopagus,  and  on  the  eve  of  his  case  coming  on,  two  of  his 
judges  who  were  to  be  were  suddenly  dismissed,  without  any 
reason  whatever  being  assigned.  I  have  these  facts  from 
authority  upon  which  I  can  implicitly  rely,  and  for  their  exact 
truth  I  pledge  myself  to  the  House.  Again,  there  was  a 
president  of  the  Court  of  the  Areopagus  called  Cleonares.  He 
was  dismissed  upon  the  instant,  without  any  reason  assigned, 


74  Modern  Political  Orations. 

but  for  causes  of  which  no  one  who  has  listened  to  what  I 
have  stated  can  for  a  moment  doubt. 

And  after  this  you  tell  me  that  the  Greek  tribunals  are  pure. 
"  Oh,  but,"  says  the  right  hon.  gentleman,  "  I  produce  Sir 
Edmund  Lyons  to  prove  my  case.  He  says  that  the  Press  is 
free,  and  the  tribunals  are  fair  and  independent."  True;  Sir 
Edmund  Lyons  says  so;  but  when?  Sir,  the  reference  to  Sir 
Edmund  Lyons  shows  that  there  are  other  texts  besides  those 

of  Scripture  which  the which  certain  persons  can  quote  for 

their  own  purposes.  The  despatch  in  question  was  written  in 
1836,  and  under  what  circumstances?  King  Otho  having 
been  advised  by  his  father,  as  young  gentlemen  who  have  lived 
too  fast  and  extravagantly  sometimes  are,  to  go  and  travel,  and 
look  out  for  a  wife — of  course,  a  rich  one — obeyed  the  paternal 
injunction,  and  left  his  kingdom  under  the  charge  of  Count 
Armansperg,  who  took  advantage  of  the  absence  of  his  royal 
master  to  set  matters  a  little  to  rights.  Well,  he  began  by 
reforming  the  tribunals,  by  making  them  independent.  He  set 
the  Tress  free — he  established  provincial  councils,  so  as  to 
give  the  people  some  sort  of  means  of  expressing  their  opinions 
on  public  matters — in  short,  he  set  the  kingdom  so  far  to 
rights,  hoping,  of  course  that  upon  the  return  of  his  royal 
master  he  would  reap  the  reward  of  his  merits  in  a  rich  over- 
flow of  royal  favours.  Notice,  however,  of  what  Count  Arman- 
sperg had  been  doing  had,  it  seems,  been  conveyed  to  King 
Otho,  who  straightway  returned  in  alarm,  and  before  the  boat 
which  conveyed  him  from  the  ship  touched  the  soil  of  Greece, 
Count  Armansperg  was  ignominiously  dismissed.  Arbitrary 
dominion  resumed  its  tyrannical  rule— injustice,  oppression, 
and  wrong  were  re-established  in  their  old  supremacy;  and 
such  is  the  system  which  has  ruled  supreme  in  Greece  ever 
since. 

Well,  to  proceed.  The  right  hon.  gentleman  dwelt  last  night 
on  the  case  ol  the  man  Sumachi,  who  was  tortured;  and  he  set 
out  by  saying  that  lie  did  not  believe  Sumachi's  statement, 
and  that  Sir  Edmund  Lyons  was  just  the  man  ready  to  receive 


Alexander  Cockbum  on  the  Greek  Difficulty.    75 

and  record  any  unauthenticated  case  bearing  against  the  Greek 
Government.  Sir,  I  say  that  Sir  Edmund  Lyons  is  a  man  who, 
after  eight  or  nine  years'  service  as  Minister  of  Athens,  re- 
ceived, as  a  token  of  his  Sovereign's  approbation,  the  Grand 
Cross  of  the  Bath ;  and  I  hope  that  a  gentleman  who  has  been 
thus  specially  and  highly  honoured  is  at  least  entitled  to  have 
his  official  assertions  believed — at  all  events  until  the  contrary 
shall  have  been  shown.  But  is  this  case  of  Sumachi  a  single 
instance  ?  No.  Torture  has  over  and  over  again  been  applied 
in  Greece.  Torture,  I  repeat,  is  commonly  applied  in  Greece. 
I  can  prove  innumerable  instances  of  it.  One  is  so  disgusting 
that  I  cannot  mention  it;  yet  I  ought  to  mention  it — I  will 
mention  it.  I  feel  that  it  ought  to  be  told,  that  we  may  at  least 
know  what  these  people,  of  whom  so  much  has  been  said, 
really  are.  How  do  they  torture  vfomen  ?  They  attach  cats 
to  their  naked  persons,  and  then  flog  the  animals,  that  in  their 
furious  struggles  they  may  lacerate  the  flesh  to  which  they  are 
tied.  Another  species  of  torture  is  this  :  a  man  is  tied,  hands, 
feet,  and  head  together,  and  in  this  position  flung  upon  the 
ground  and  bastinadoed.  And  still,  Sir,  the  right  hon.  gentle- 
man is  right — perfectly  right — in  saying  that  all  such  atrocities 
are  forbidden  by  the  Constitution  of  Greece.  But  what  is  the 
value  of  that  Constitution  ?  I  say,  Sir,  not  so  much  as  that 
of  the  paper  on  which  it  is  written.  It  has  been  set  aside — 
violated,  outraged  in  every  respect  and  in  every  way.  It  exists 
but  in  name ;  while  oppression  and  corruption  reign  in  un- 
mitigated horror  in  its  room. 

And  now,  Sir,  I  dismiss  the  right  hon.  gentleman  and  his 
Greek  arguments.  I  trust  I  have  given  him  and  them  satis- 
factory answers.  Transcendent  as  are  the  abilities  of  the  right 
hon.  gentleman,  I  believe  that  even  his  talents  will  not  support 
a  case  when  truth  is  in  the  other  scale.  But  truth,  if  it  does 
not  prevail  here,  will  prevail  elsewhere.  The  country  is  begin- 
ning to  appreciate  what  is  the  truth  in  this  question.  The 
country  will  fully  appreciate,  too,  the  motives  which  induce 
you,  after  four  years  of  silence,  now  at  length  to  come  forward 


j6  Modern  Political  Orations. 

and  attack  the  noble  Lord  at  the  head  of  the  Foreign  Affairs  of 
this  country.  But  whatever  may  be  the  result  here,  I  tell  you 
that  the  people  of  England  will  only  rally  the  more  heartily 
around  that  Government  which  stands  pledged  to  extend  the 
safeguard  of  its  power  to  all  its  subjects,  in  whatever  land  their 
business  may  have  led  them;  and  which  is  also  able  and  willing, 
if  on  any  occasion  it  may  be  too  late  to  interfere  for  the  pur- 
poses of  protection,  at  all  events  to  stand  forward  and  to 
demand  from  them  reparation  and  redress. 


SIR  BULWER  LYTTON1  ON  THE 
CRIMEAN  WAR. 

House  of  Commons,  June  4TH,  1855. 

[During  a  six  nights'  debate  on  the  crisis  in  the  Crimean  War,  it  was 
seriously  recommended  to  conclude  a  peace  with  Russia  on  terms  which, 
in  ihe  opinion  of  many  politicians,  did  not  satisfy  the  honour  of  England. 
Sir  E.  B.  Lytton  spoke  on  the  third  night.] 

Sir, — The  right  hon.  gentleman  the  member  for  Manchester 
(Mr  Milner  Gibson),  towards  the  close  of  his  able  speech, 
summed  up  his  strongest  objections  to  the  continuance  of  the 
war  by  asking  how  it  would  profit  the  country.  In  answer  to 
that  question,  let  me  remind  the  right  hon.  gentleman  of  the 
laudable  earnestness  with  which,  in  a  recent  debate,  he  assured 
the  House  that  he,  and  those  with  whom  he  concurred  in  the 
policy  to  be  adopted  for  the  restoration  of  peace,  were  no  less 
anxious  than  we  are  for  the  due  maintenance  of  the  national 
honour.  I  cordially  believe  him ;  and  when  he  asks  how  the 
continuance  of  the  war  can  profit  the  country,  I  answer,  because 
the  continuance  of  the  war  is  as  yet  essential  to  the  vindication 
of  the  national  honour,  and  because  the  national  honour  is  the 
bulwark  of  the  national  interests.  For  there  is  this  distinction 
between  individuals  and  nations :  with  the  first  a  jealous 
tenacity  of  honour  mayjje  a  mere  sentiment,  with  the  last  it  is  a 
condition  of  power.  If  you  lower  the  honour  of  a  man  in  the 
eyes  of  his  equals,  he  may  still  say,  "  My  fortune  is  net  attacked, 

1  Afterwards  Baron  Lytton. 


78  Modern  Political  Orations. 

my  estate  is  unimpaired,  the  laws  still  protect  my  rights  and  my 
person,  I  can  still  command  my  independence  and  bestow  my 
beneficence  upon  those  who  require  my  aid  ; "  but  if  you  lower 
the  honour  of  a  nation  in  the  eyes  of  other  States,  and  espe- 
cially a  nation  like  England,  which  owes  her  position,  not  to 
her  territories,  but  to  her  character  ;  not  to  the  amount  of  her 
armies,  nor  even  to  the  pomp  of  her  fleets,  but  to  a  general 
belief  in  her  high  spirit  and  indomitable  will — her  interests  will 
1  >e  damaged  in  proportion  to  the  disparagement  of  her  name. 
You  do  not  only  deface  her  scutcheons,  you  strike  down  her 
shield.  Her  credit  will  be  affected,  her  commerce  will  suffer 
at  its  source.  Take  the  awe  from  her  flag,  and  you  take  the 
wealth  from  her  merchants  ;  in  future  negotiations  her  claims 
will  be  disputed,  and  she  can  never  again  interfere  with  effect 
against  violence  and  wrong  in  behalf  of  liberty  and  right. 
These  are  some  of  the  consequences  which  might  affect  the 
interests  of  this  country,  if  other  nations  could  say,  even 
unjustly,  that  England  had  grown  unmindful  of  her  honour. 
But  would  they  not  say  it  with  indisputable  justice  if,  after 
encouraging  Turkey  to  a  war  with  her  most  powerful  enemy, 
we  could  accept  any  terms  of  peace  which  Turkey  herself 
indignantly  refuses  to  endorse?  Honour,  indeed,  is  a  word  on 
which  many  interpreters  may  differ,  but  at  least  all  interpreters 
must  agree  upon  this,  that  the  essential  of  honour  is  fidelity  to 
engagements.  What  are  the  engagements  by  which  we  have 
pledged  ourselves  to  Turkey  ?  Freedom  from  the  aggressions 
of  Russia.  Is  that  all?  No;  reasonable  guarantees  that  the 
aggressions  shall  not  be  renewed.  But  would  any  subject 
oi  tin  <  Htoman  Empire  think  such  engagements  fulfilled  by  a 
peace  that  would  not  take  from  Russia  a  single  one  of  her 
fortresses,  a  single  one  of  her  ships,  by  which  she  now  holds 
Constantinople  itself  under  the  very  mouth  of  her  cannon? 

Sir,  both  the  members  for  Manchester  have  the  merit  of  con- 
sist* m  y  in  the  <  .ins,-  ill.  v  espouse.  They  were  against  this  war 
from  the  first.  Bui  I  cannot  conceive  how  any  Government 
which    led    us  into  this    war,  and   is  responsible  for  all  it  has 


Sir  Bulwer  Lytton  on  the  Crimean  War.     79 

cost  us,  should  now  suddenly  adopt  the  language  of  Peace 
Societies,  and  hold  it  as  a  crime  if  we  push  to  success  the 
enterprise  which  they  commenced  by  a  failure.  I  approach 
the  arguments  of  the  right  hon.  member  for  the  University 
of  Oxford  (Mr  Gladstone),  with  a  profound  respect  for  his  rare 
intellect  and  eloquence,  and  still  more  for  that  genuine  earnest- 
ness which  assures  us  that,  if  he  ever  does  diverge  into  sophistry 
and  paradox,  it  is  not  till  he  has  religiously  puzzled  his  con- 
science into  a  belief  of  their  simplicity  and  truth.  The  main 
argument  on  which  the  right  hon.  gentleman  rests  the  vindica- 
tion of  the  views  he  entertains  is  this  :  He  says,  "  I  supported 
the  war  at  the  commencement,  because  then  it  was  just ;  I 
would  now  close  the  war,  because  its  object  may  be  attained 
by  negotiation."  That  is  his  proposition  ;  I  would  state  it 
fairly.  But  what  at  the  commencement  was  the  object  of 
the  war,  stripped  of  all  diplomatic  technicalities  ?  The  right 
hon.  gentleman  would  not,  I  am  sure,  accept  the  definition 
of  his  ex-colleague,  the  right  hon.  member  for  Southwark 
(Sir  Wm.  Molesworth),  that  one  object  of  the  war  was  to 
punish  Russia  for  her  insolence — a  doctrine  I  would  never  have 
expected  in  so  accomplished  a  philosopher  as  my  right  hon. 
friend,  the  pupil  of  Bentham  and  the  editor  of  Hobbes.  Either 
in  war  or  legislation,  punishment  is  only  a  means  which  has 
for  its  object  the  prevention  of  further  crime.  The  right  hon. 
gentleman  the  member  for  the  University  of  Oxford  will  no 
doubt  say  to  me,  the  object  was  the  independence  and  integrity 
of  the  Ottoman  Empire.  But  how  did  he  describe  that  object 
in  his  speech  at  Manchester  in  September  1853?  He  said 
then  to  that  important  audience  (I  quote  his  very  words) : 

"  Remember  the  independence  and  integrity  of  Turkey  are  not  like  the 
independence  of  England  and  France.  It  is  a  Government  full  of  anomaly, 
of  difficulty,  and  distress." 

This  is  the  mode  in  which,  simultaneously  with  those  articles 
in  the  Times,  quoted  by  the  right  hon.  member  for  Manchester 
(Mr  Gibson),  on  the  very  eve  of  a  war  that  the  right  hon.  mem- 
ber for  the  University  of  Oxford  then  believed  to  be  just  and 


8o  Modern  Political  Orations. 

when  he  would  naturally  place  the  object  in  the  most  favour- 
able light  his  convictions  would  permit,  before  the  people  whose 
ardour  it  became  his  duty  to  rouse,  whose  pockets  it  was  his 
office  to  tax — this  is  the  laudatory  mode  in  which  the  right 
hon.  gentleman  warmed  the  enthusiasm  of  his  listeners  to 
acknowledge  the  justice  of  his  object ;  and  is  the  statesman  who 
at  the  onset  could  take  so  chilling  a  view  of  all  the  great  human 
interests  involved  in  this  struggle,  likely  to  offer  us  unprejudiced 
and  effective  counsels  for  securing  to  Turkey  that  independence 
and  integrity  in  which  he  sees  anomaly  and  distress,  and  in 
which  we  see  the  safeguard  to  Europe? 

The  right  hon.  gentleman  complains  that  the  terms  in  which 
our  object  is  to  be  sought  are  now  unwisely  extended.  Mho 
taught  us  to  extend  them  ?  Who  made  not  only  the  terms 
but  the  object  itself  indefinite?  Was  it  not  the  head  of  the 
Government  of  which  the  right  hon.  gentleman  was  so  illus- 
trious a  member?  Did  not  Lord  Aberdeen,  when  repeatedly 
urged  to  state  to  what  terms  of  peace  he  would  apply  the 
epithets  "safe"  and  "honourable,"  as  repeatedly  answer, 
"That  must  depend  on  the  fortune  of  war;  and  the  terms  will 
be  very  different  if  we  receive  them  at  Constantinople,  or  im- 
pose them  at  St  Petersburg"?  Sir,  if  I  may  say  so  without 
presumption,  I  always  discourage  that  language.  I  always  held 
the  doctrine  that  if  we  once  went  to  war,  it  should  be  for 
nothing  more  and  nothing  less  than  justice.  [Mr  M.  Gibson. — 
"  Hear,  hear  !  "  Ay,  but  do  not  let  me  dishonestly  catch  that 
cheer,  for  I  must  add,  and  also  for  adequate  securities  that 
justice  will  be  maintained.  No  redresses  should  induce  us  to 
ask  for  less — no  conquests  justify  us  in  demanding  more.  But 
when  the  right  hon.  gentleman,  being  out  of  office,  now  also 
its  that  doctrine,  why  did  he  not  refuse  his  sanction  to  the 
noble  Earl,  who  took  the  whole  question  out  of  the  strict  limits 
of  abstract  justice  the  moment  he  made  the  indefinite  arbi- 
tration of  military  success  the  only  principle  to  guide  us  in  the 
objects  and  terms  of  peace  ?  And  if  the  right  hon.  gentleman 
li^idly  desiied  to  limit  our  war  to  one  of  protection,  how  could 


Sir  Bulwer  Lytton  on  the  Crimean  War.     81 

he  have  consented  to  sit  in  a  Cabinet  which  at  once  changed 
its  whole  character  into  a  war  of  invasion  ?  All  the  compli- 
cations which  now  surround  us — all  the  difficulties  in  the  way 
of  negotiation  which  now  perplex  even  the  right  hon.  gentle- 
man's piercing  intellect— date  from  the  day  you  landed  in  the 
Crimea  and  laid  siege  to  Sebastopol.  I  do  not  say  your 
strategy  was  wrong  ;  but  wrong  or  right,  when  you  invaded  the 
Crimea  you  inevitably  altered  the  conditions  on  which  to 
establish  peace.  The  right  hon.  gentleman  was  a  party  to  that 
campaign,  and  he  cannot  now  shrink  from  its  logical  conse- 
quences. Those  consequences  are  the  difficulties  comprehended 
in  the  Third  Article— the  lie  that  your  policy  would  give  to 
your  actions  if  you  accepted  the  conditions  proposed  by 
Russia  ;  for  why  did  you  besiege  Sebastopol,  but  because  it 
was  that  fortress  which  secured  to  Russia  her  preponderance 
in  the  Black  Sea,  and  its  capture  or  dismantlement  was  the 
material  guarantee  you  then  and  there  pledged  yourselves  to 
obtain  for  the  independence  of  Turkey  and  the  security  of 
Europe  ?  And  if  the  fortunes  of  war  do  not  allow  you  yet  to 
demand  that  Sebastopol  be  disfortified,  they  do  authorise  you 
to  demand  an  equivalent  in  Russia's  complete  resignation  of  a 
fleet  in  the  Black  Sea ;  for  at  this  moment  not  one  Russian 
ship  can  venture  to  show  itself  in  those  waters. 

If  the  right  hon.  gentleman  is  perplexed  to  determine  what 
mode  of  limiting  the  Russian  preponderance  can  be  invented, 
one  rule  for  his  guidance  at  least  he  is  bound  to  consider 
imperative— namely,  that  the  mode  of  limitation  must  be  one 
which  shall  not  content  England  alone,  but  the  ally  to  whom 
the  faith  of  England  was  pledged  by  the  Cabinet  which  the 
right  hon.  gentleman  adorned.  It  is  strange  to  what  double 
uses  the  right  hon.  gentleman  can  put  an  ally.  When  we 
wished  to  inquire  into  the  causes  of  calamities  purely  our  own 
— calamities  which  the  right  hon.  gentleman  thinks  were  so 
exaggerated — an  exaggeration  that  inquiry  has  not  served  to 
dispel — then  we  are  told,  "  What  are  you  doing  ?  Take  care  ! 
To  inquire  into  the  fate  of  an  English  army   may  offend  and 


82  Modern  Political  Orations. 

alienate  your  ally,  France."  But  now,  when  the  right  hon. 
gentleman  would  have  desired  us  to  patch  up  a  peace,  he  for- 
gets altogether  that  we  have  an  ally  upon  the  face  of  the  globe. 
He  recommends  us  singly  to  creep  out  of  the  quarrel  with 
Russia,  and  would  leave  us  equally  exposed  to  the  charge  of 
desertion  by  Turkey,  and  of  perfidy  by  France.  But  it  has 
been  insinuated — I  know  not  on  what  authority — that  France 
would  have  listened  to  these  terms  if  we  had  advised  it.  If 
this  be  true,  I  thank  our  Government  for  declining  such  a 
responsibility.  For  if,  in  that  noble  courtesy  which  has  charac- 
terised the  Emperor  of  the  French  in  his  intercourse  with  us, 
he  had  yielded  to  your  instances,  and  consented  to  resume  and 
complete  negotiations  based  upon  terms  he  had  before  refused, 
who  amongst  us  can  lay  his  hand  on  his  heart  and  say  that  a 
peace  which  would  have  roused  the  indignation  even  of  our 
commercial  and  comparatively  pacific  people,  might  not  so  have 
mortified  the  pride  of  that  nation  of  soldiers  to  which  the 
name  of  Napoleon  was  the  title-deed  to  empire,  as  to  have 
shaken  the  stability  of  a  throne  which  now  seems  essential  to 
the  safety  and  social  order  of  the  civilised  globe  ?  "  Oh,"  says 
the  right  hon.  gentleman  the  member  for  the  University  of 
Oxford,  with  a  solecism  in  logic  which  I  could  never  have 
expected  from  so  acute  a  reasoner,  "  see  how  Russia  has 
come  down  to  terms  which  she  before  so  contemptuously 
scouted.  In  February  1853  she  declared  such  and  such 
terms  were  incompatible  with  her  honour ;  she  would  dictate 
terms  to  Turkey  only  at  St  Petersburg,  under  the  frown  of  the 
Czar,  or  at  the  headquarters  of  the  Russian  camp ;  and  now 
see  how  mild  and  equitable  Russia  has  become."  Yes ;  but 
how  was  that  change  effected  ?  By  diplomacy  and  negotiations  ? 
By  notes  and  protocols?  No — these  had  been  tried  in  vain; 
the  result  of  these  was  the  levying  of  armaments — the  seizure 
of  provinces — the  massacre  of  Sinope.  That  change  was 
effected  by  the  sword — effected  in  those  fields  of  Alma  and 
[nkerman  to  which  the  right  hon.  gentleman  so  touchingly 
appealed—  effected  by  those  military  successes  inspired  by  the 


Sir  Bulwer  Lytton  on  the  Crimean  War.      $3 

passion  for  fame  and  glory  on  which,  as  principles  of  action, 
his  humanity  is  so  bitterly  sarcastic.  The  right  hon.  gentleman 
dwelt  in  a  Christian  spirit,  which  moved  us  all,  on  the  gallant 
blood  that  had  been  shed  by  us,  our  allies,  and  even  by  our 
foes  in  this  unhappy  quarrel.  But  did  it  never  occur  to  him  that, 
all  the  while  he  was  speaking,  this  question  was  irresistibly 
forcing  itself  on  the  minds  of  his  English  auditnee  :  "  And 
shall  all  this  blood  have  been  shed  in  vain  ?  Was  it  merely  to 
fertilise  the  soil  of  the  Crimea  with  human  bones?  And  shall 
we,  who  have  buried  two-thirds  of  our  army,  still  leave  a 
fortress  at  Sebastopol  and  a  Russian  fleet  in  the  Black  Sea, 
eternally  to  menace  the  independence  of  that  ally  whom  our 
heroes  have  perished  to  protect  ?  "  And  would  not  that  blood 
have  been  shed  in  vain  ?  Talk  of  recent  negotiations  effecting 
the  object  for  which  you  commenced  the  war !  Let  us  strip 
those  negotiations  of  diplomatic  quibbles,  and  look  at  them 
like  men  of  common  sense.  Do  not  let  gentlemen  be  alarmed 
lest  I  should  weary  them  with  going  at  length  over  such 
hackneyed  ground — two  minutes  will  suffice. 
/  The  direct  question  involved  is  to  terminate  the  preponder- 
ance of  Russia  in  the  Black  Sea ;  and  with  this  is  involved 
another  question — to  put  an  end  to  the  probabilities  of 
renewed  war  arising  out  of  the  position  which  Russia  would 
henceforth  occupy  in  those  waters.  /Now  the  first  proposition 
of  Russia  is  to  open  to  all  ships  the  passage  of  the  Bosphorus 
and  the  Dardanelles.  "That  is  the  right  thing,"  says  the 
right  hon.  member  for  Manchester.  Yes ;  so  it  would  be  if 
Russia  had  not  the  whole  of  that  coast  bristling  with  fortresses ; 
but  while  these  fortresses  remain  it  is  simply  to  say — Let 
Russia  increase  as  she  pleases  the  maritime  forces  she  can 
direct  against  Turkey,  sheltered  by  all  the  strongholds 
she  has  established  on  the  coasts,  and  let  France  and  England 
keep  up,  if  they  please,  the  perpetual  surveillance  of  naval 
squadrons  in  a  sea,  as  the  note  of  a  French  minister  well 
expresses  it,  "where  they  could  find  neither  a  port  of  refuge 
nor  an  arsenal  of  supply."     This  does  not,  on  the  one  hand, 


84  Modern  Political  Orations. 

diminish  the  preponderance  of  Russia  ;  it  only  says  you  may, 
at  great  expense,  and  with  great  disadvantages,  keep  standing 
navies  to  guard  against  its  abuse ;  and  on  the  other  hand, 
far  from  putting  an  end  to  the  probabilities  of  war,  it  leaves 
the  fleets  of  Russia  perpetually  threatening  Turkey,  and  the 
fleets  of  England  and  France  perpetually  threatening  Russia. 
And  while  such  a  position  could  hardly  fail  sooner  or  later  to 
create  jealousy  between  England  and  France,  I  can  scarcely 
imagine  any  disease  that  would  more  rot  away  the  independ- 
ence of  Turkey  than  this  sort  of  chronic  protection  established 
in  her  own  waters. 

The  second  proposition,  which  retains  the  mare  clausitm, 
not  only  leaves  the  preponderance  of  Russia  exactly  what  it 
was  before  the  war  began,  but  in  granting  to  the  Sultan  the 
power  to  summon  his  allies  at  any  moment  he  may  require 
them,  exposes  you  to  the  fresh  outbreak  of  hostilities  whenever 
the  Sultan  might  even  needlessly  take  alarm  ;  but  with  these 
differences  between  your  present  and  future  position — first, 
that  Russia  would  then  be  strengthened,  and  you  might  be 
unprepared  ;  and  next,  that  while,  as  I  said  before,  now  not  one 
Russian  flag  can  show  itself  on  those  waters,  you  might  then, 
before  you  could  enter  the  Straits,  find  that  flag  waving  in 
triumph  over  the  walls  of  the  Seraglio.  And,  to  prove  that 
this  is  no  imaginary  danger,  just  hear  what  is  said  upon  the 
subject  by  the  practical  authority  of  Marshal  Marmont,  which 
was  loosely  referred  to  the  other  night  by  the  noble  Lord  the 
member  for  London  (Lord  John  Russell),  and  remember  the 
Marshal  is  speaking  at  a  period  when  the  force  of  Russia  in 
those  parts  was  far  inferior  to  what  it  would  be  now  if  you 
acceded  to  her  terms  :  "  At  Sebastopol,  Russia  has  twelve  sail 
of  the  line,  perfectly  armed  and  equipped."  Let  me  here 
observe  that  trie  Marshal  recommends  that  this  number  should 
be  increased  to  thirty,  and  says  that  if  Sebastopol  were  made 
the  harbour  of  a  powerful  navy,  nothing  could  prevent  Russia 
from  imposing  laws  on  the  Mediterranean — 

"In  the  immediate  neighbourhood  a  division  of  the  army  is  cantoned; 
lid  embark  in  tw>  days,  and  in  three  more  reach  Constantinople — the 


Sir  Bulwer  Lytton  on  the  Crimean  War.      85 

distance  between  Sevastopol  and  the  TSosphorus  being  180  miles,  and  a 
speedy  passage  almost  a  matter  of  certainty,  owing  to  ihe  prevalence  of 
northerly  winds,  and  the  constant  current  from  the  Euxine  inwards  the  Sea 
of  Marmora.  Thus,  on  the  apprehension  of  interference  from  the  allied 
fleet,  that  of  Russia  would  pass  and  take  up  such  a  position  as  circum- 
stances might  dictate,  while  an  army  of  60,000  men  would  cross  the 
Danube,  pass  the  Balkan,  and  place  itself  at  Adrianople  ;  these  movements 
being  effected  with  such  promptitude  and  facility  that  no  circumstances 
whatever  could  prevent  their  being  carried  into  execution." 

And  now  I  put  it  to  the  candour  of  those  distinguished 
advocates  for  the  Russian  proposals,  whose  sincerity  I  am 
sure  is  worthy  of  their  character  and  talents,  whether  the 
obvious  result  of  both  these  propositions  for  peace  is  not  to 
keep  your  Powers  in  the  unrelaxing  attitude  of  war — one  of 
those  Powers  always  goaded  on  by  cupidity  and  ambition,  the 
other  three  always  agitated  by  jealousy  and  suspicion  ?  And 
is  it  on  such  a  barrel  of  gunpowder  as  this  that  you  would  ask 
the  world  to  fall  asleep  ?  Put,  say  the  hon.  gentlemen,  "  The 
demand  of  the  Western  Powers  on  the  Third  Article  is  equally 
inadequate  to  effect  the  object."  Well,  I  think  there  they 
have  very  much  proved  their  case — very  much  proved  how 
fortunate  it  was  that  negotiations  were  broken  off.  However, 
when  a  third  point  is  to  be  raised  again  let  us  clear  it  of 
all  difficulties,  and  raise  it  not  in  a  Congress  of  Vienna  but 
within  the  walls  of  Sebastopol. 

Sir,  before  I  pass  from  this  part  of  the  subject,  let  me  respect- 
fully address  one  suggestion  to  those  earnest  and  distinguished 
reasoners  who  would  make  peace  their  paramount  object. 
You  desire  peace  as  soon  as  possible ;  do  you  think  you  take 
the  right  way  to  obtain  it?  Do  you  think  that  when  Russia 
can  say :  "  Here  are  members  of  the  very  Government  who 
commenced  the  war  declaring  that  our  moderation  has  removed 
all  ground  for  further  hostilities ;  they  are  backed  by  the  most 
conspicuous  leaders  of  the  popular  party  ;  the  representatives 
of  those  great  manufacturing  interests  which  so  often  influence, 
and  sometimes  control,  the  councils  of  a  commercial  State  ; " 
do  you  think  that  Russia  will  not  add  also  :  "  These  are 
signs  that  encourage  us,  the  Russian  Empire,  to  prosecute  the 


86  Modern  Political  Orations. 

war;  they  are  signs  that  our  enemy  foresees  the  speedy 
exhaustion  of  its  means,  the  relaxing  ardour  of  its  people,  and 
must,  after  some  bravado,  accept  the  terms  which  are  recom- 
mended in  the  National  Assembly  by  experienced  statesmen 
and  popular  tribunes "  ?  You  are  leading  Russia  to  deceive 
herself,  to  deceive  her  subjects.  You  are  encouraging  her  to 
hold  out,  and  every  speech  you  make  in  such  a  strain  a  Russian 
general  might  read  to  his  troops,  a  Russian  minister  might 
translate  to  trembling  merchants  and  beggared  nobles,  if  he 
desired  to  animate  them  all  to  new  exertions  against  your 
country.  I  do  not  wish  to  malign  and  misrepresent  you.  I 
respect  the  courage  with  which  you  avow  unpopular  opinions. 
I  know  you  are  patriots  as  sincere  as  we  are.  You  have  proved 
your  attachment  to  the  abstract  principle  of  freedom  ;  but  do 
you  reflect  whether  you  make  a  right  exercise  of  your  powers 
if,  when  we  are  sending  our  sons  and  kinsmen  to  assist  a  cause 
which  would  at  least  secure  weakness  from  oppression,  and 
the  free  development  of  one  nation  from  the  brute  force  of 
another,  ycu  take  the  part  of  the  enemy  against  your  country? 
[Mr  M.  Gibson.—"  No,  no  !  "]  "  No,  no  ?"  What  means  that 
denial  ?  You  take  part  with  the  enemy  when  you  say  he  is  in 
the  right,  and  against  your  country  when  you  say  we  are  in  the 
wrong.  You  transfer  from  our  cause  to  his  that  consciousness 
of  superior  justice,  which  gives  ardour  to  the  lukewarm,  endur- 
ance to  the  hesitating,  and  by  vindicating  his  quarrel  you 
invigorate  his  arms. 

If  I  now  turn  to  the  Amendments  before  the  House,  I  know 
not  one  that  I  can  thoroughly  approve;  not,  of  course,  that 
by  the  hon.  member  for  the  University  of  Oxford  (Sir  Wm. 
Heathcote),  not  that  of  the  hon.  member  for  Kidderminster 
(Mr  Robert  Lowe);  fori  feel  no  regret  that  Russia  should 
not  have  terminated  hostilities  by  accepting  proposals  inade- 
quate in  my  judgment  to  secure  our  object  ;  while  I  think 
it  scarcely  consistent  with  the  prerogative  of  the  Crown,  and 
might  furnish  a  dangerous  precedenl  hereafter,  if  we  were  to 
contest  the  right  of  Her   Majesty  to  judge  for  herself  whether 


Sir  Bulwer  Lytton  on  the  Crimean  War.     87 

the  means  of  peace  on  the  basis  of  the  Third  Negotiation 
are  exhausted  or  not.  The  Amendment  of  the  right  hon. 
member  for  Portsmouth  (Sir  F.  Baring)  would  have  been  more 
complimentary  to  the  quarter  whence  he  stole  it  if  he  had  not 
added  the  crime  of  murder  to  that  of  theft.  He  takes  an  infant 
from  the  paternal  cradle,  cuts  it  in  half,  and  the  head  which  he 
presents  to  us  has  no  longer  a  leg  to  stand  upon.  The  original 
motion  of  my  right  hon.  friend  the  member  for  Bucking- 
hamshire (Mr  Disraeli),  in  censuring  the  Government  for 
ambiguous  language  and  uncertain  conduct,  gave  a  substantial 
reason  for  conveying  to  Her  Majesty  that  we,  at  least,  would 
support  her  in  the  conduct  of  war.  Omit  that  censure — imply 
by  your  silence  that  there  is  no  reason  to  distrust  Her  Majesty's 
responsible  advisers — and  the  rest  of  the  Resolution  becomes 
an  unmeaning  platitude.  It  is  with  great  satisfaction  that  I 
think  of  the  effect  produced  by  the  original  motion  of  my 
right  hon.  friend ;  for  to  my  mind  that  effect  atones  for  its 
want  of  success  in  meeting  with  the  sanction  of  the  House. 
It  has  not,  it  is  true,  changed  the  Government,  but  it  assuredly 
has  changed  its  tone.  I  do  not  know  whether  that  change  will 
be  lasting,  but  I  hope  that  we  are  not  to  take,  as  a  test  of  the 
earnestness  of  a  Government  thus  suddenly  galvanised  into 
vigour,  the  speech  of  the  noble  Lord  the  member  for  London 
(Lord  John  Russell),  which,  before  the  division,  implied  so 
much,  but  which,  after  the  division,  was  explained  away  in  so 
remarkable  a  manner.  I  rejoice  that,  in  wringing  direct  declara- 
tions from  the  Government,  it  leaves  us  free  to  discuss  that 
which  is  before  us,  not  as  Englishmen  against  Englishmen,  but 
as  citizens  of  one  common  State  equally  interested  in  surveying 
the  grounds  of  a  common  danger. 

Much  reference  has  been  made,  in  the  course  of  this  debate, 
as  to  the  position  of  Austria.  The  mediation  of  Austria  is 
withdrawn  for  the  present,  but  Austria  is  still  there,  always 
ready  to  mediate  as  long  as  she  hesitates  to  act.  It  is  well  to 
consider  what  may  be  our  position  with  regard  to  a  Power 
with    which   we    have   constantly   been  brought    into   contact. 


88  Modern  Political  Orations. 

I  cannot  too  earnestly  entreat  you  to  distinguish  with  Austria 
and  the  alliance  with  Austria.  I  think  it  is  of  the  utmost 
importance,  if  you  would  confine  this  war  within  compact  and 
definite  limits,  that  you  should  maintain  friendly  terms  with  a 
Power  which,  as  long  as  it  is  neutral,  if  it  cannot  serve  does 
not  harm  you,  and  which  you  could  not  seriously  injure 
without  casting  out  of  the  balance  of  Europe  one  of  the 
weights  most  necessary  to  the  equilibrium  of  the  scales.  It 
is  easy  to  threaten  Austria  with  the  dismemberment  of  her 
ill-cemented  Empire  —easy  to  threaten  her  with  reduction  to  a 
fourth-rale  Power.  But  she  has  this  answer  to  the  practical 
sagacity  of  England  and  the  chivalrous  moderation  of  France  : 
"  Is  the  Empire  of  Austria  not  less  essential  as  a  counterpoise 
to  France  than  the  integrity  of  Turkey  is  essential  as  a  barrier 
against  Russia  ?  If  the  balance  of  power  be  not  a  mere  dream, 
I  trust  my  cause  to  every  statesman  by  whom  the  balance  of 
power  is  respected."  But  though,  for  this  and  for  other 
reasons,  I  would  desire  you  to  maintain  friendly  relations  with 
Austria,  pardon  me  if  I  doubt  the  wisdom  of  having  so 
earnestly  solicited  her  alliance.  Supposing  you  had  now 
gained  it,  what  would  you  have  done  ?  Just  what  a  Govern- 
ment here  might  do  if  it  pressed  into  its  Cabinet  some  able 
and  influential  man,  with  views  not  congenial  to  its  own,  and 
who  used  his  power  on  your  councils  to  modify  the  opinions 
and  check  the  plans  upon  which  you  had  before  been  united. 
Add  Austria  now,  while  she  is  still  timid  and  reluctant,  to 
the  two  western  Powers — give  her  a  third  co-equal  voice  in  all 
the  conduct  of  the  war,  and  it  could  only  introduce  into  their 
councils  a  certain  element  of  vacillation  and  discord.  But 
if  you  bide  your  time,  preserving  Austria  in  her  present 
attitude  of  friendly  neutrality,  if  you  do  not  threaten  and 
affront  her  into  action  against  you,  the  natural  consequences 
of  continued  war,  the  common  inclinations  of  her  statesmen 
and  her  people — which  I  have  reason  to  know  are  not  favour- 
able  to  Russia  will  bring  her  to  you  at  Length  with  coincidence 
in  your  objects,  because  according  to  the  dictates  ol  her  own 


Sir  Bulwer  Lytton  on  the  Crimean  War.      89 

sense  of  self-interest.  As  far  as  I  can  judge,  our  tone  with 
Austria  has  been  much  too  supplicating,  and  our  mode  of 
arguing  with  her  somewhat  ludicrous.  It  reminds  me  of  the 
story  of  an  American  who  saw  making  up  to  him  in  the  woods 
an  enormous  bear.  Upon  that  he  betook  himself  to  his 
devotions,  and  exclaimed,  "  O  Lord,  there  is  going  to  be  a 
horrible  fight  between  me  and  the  bear.  All  I  seek  is  fair-play 
and  no  favour.  If  there  is  justice  in  Heaven,  you  ought  to 
help  me ;  but  if  you  won't  help  me,  don't  help  the  bear." 

But  now  comes  the  grave  and  solemn  problem  which  the 
withdrawal  of  all  negotiations  forces  still  more  upon  the  mind 
of  every  one  who  thinks  deeply,  and  which  the  right  hon. 
gentleman  the  member  for  Manchester  has  so  properly  raised. 
War  being  fairly  upon  us,  of  what  nature  shall  be  that  war  ? 
Shall  it  assume  that  vast  and  comprehensive  character  which 
excites  in  the  hon.  member  for  Aylesbury  (Mr  Layard)  hopes 
for  the  human  race  too  daring  even  for  him  to  detail  to  this 
sober  House?  In  plain  words,  shall  it  be  a  war  in  which,  to 
use  the  language  of  Mr  Canning  in  1826,  you  will  enlist  "all 
those  who,  whether  justly  or  unjustly,  are  dissatisfied  with 
their  own  countries  ; "  in  which  you  will  imitate  the  spirit  of 
revolutionary  France,  when  she  swept  over  Europe,  and  sought 
to  reconcile  humanity  to  slaughter  by  pointing  to  a  rainbow  of 
freedom  on  the  other  side  of  the  deluge  ?  Does  History  here 
give  to  the  hon.  member  an  example  or  a  warning?  How 
were  these  promises  fulfilled  ?  Look  round  Europe !  You 
had  the  carnage— where  is  the  freedom  ?  The  deluge  spread, 
the  deluge  rolled  away — half  a  century  is  fled,  and  where  is 
the  rainbow  visible  ?  Is  it  on  the  ruins  of  Cracow  ?  on  the 
field  of  Novara  ?  or  over  the  walls  of  defeated  Rome  ?  No ; 
in  a  war  that  invokes  liberal  opinion  against  established  rules, 
what  I  most  dread  and  deprecate  is,  not  that  you  will  fulfil 
your  promises  and  reap  the  republics  for  which  you  sowed 
rebellions ;  what  I  dread  far  more  is,  that  all  such  promises 
would  in  the  end  be  broken — that  the  hopes  of  liberty  would 
be  betrayed — that  the  moment  the  monarchies  of  England  and 


90  Modern  Political  Orations. 

France  could  obtain  a  peace  that  realised  the  objects  for 
which  monarchs  go  to  war,  they  would  feel  themselves  com- 
pelled by  the  exhaustion  of  their  resources,  by  the  instincts  of 
self-conservatism,  to  abandon  the  auxiliaries  they  had  lured  into 
revolution — restore  to  despotism  "  the  right  divine  to  govern 
wrong,"  and  furnish  it  with  new  excuse  for  vigilance  and 
rigour  by  the  disorders  which  always  distinguish  armed  revolu- 
tion from  peaceable  reforms. 

I  say  nothing  here  against  the  fair  possibility  of  reconstruct- 
ing in  some   future  Congress  the  independence  of  Poland,  or 
such  territorial  arrangements  as  are  comprised  in  the  question, 
"  What  is  to  be  done  in  the  Crimea,  provided  we  take  it  ? " 
But  these  are  not  all  that  is  meant  by  the  language  we  hear, 
less  vaguely  out   of  this    House  than   in  it,   except  when  a 
minister  implies  what  he  shrinks  from  explaining.     And  woe 
and  shame  to  the  English  statesman  who,  whatever  may  be  his 
sympathy  for  oppressed  subjects,  shall  rouse  them  to  rebellion 
against  their  native  thrones,  not  foreseeing  that  in  the  changes 
of  popular  representative  Government,  all  that  his  Cabinet  may 
promise  to-day  a  new  Cabinet  to-morrow  may  legally  revoke ; 
that  he  has  no  power  to  redeem  in  freedom  the  pledges  that 
he  writes  in  blood  !     And  woe  still  more  to  brave  populations 
that   are   taught  to  rest   Democracy  on  the  arms  of  foreign 
soldiers,  the  fickle  cheers  of  foreign  popular  assemblies,  or  to 
dream  that  liberty  can  ever  be  received  as  a  gift,  extorted  as  a 
right,  maintained  as  a  hereditary  heirloom,  except  the  charter 
be  obtained  at  their  own  Runnymede,  and  signed  under  the 
shadow  of  their  own  oaks  !      But  there   is  all  the   difference 
between  rousing  nations  against  their  rulers  and  securing  the 
independence  and  integrity  of  a  weak  nation  against  a  powerful 
neighbour.     The  first  is  a  policy  that  submits  the  destinies  of  a 
country  to  civil  discord,  the  other  relieves  those  destinies  from 
foreign   interference ;    the   one   tends  to   vain   and    indefinite 
warfare— the  other  starts,  at  the  outset,  with  intelligible  con- 
ditions of  peace. 

Therefore,  in   this  war,  let  us  strictly  keep  to  the  object  for 


Sir  Bulwer  Lytton  on  the  Crimean  War.      91 

which  it  was  begun — the  integrity  and  independence  of  the 
Ottoman  Empire,  secured  by  all  the  guarantees  which  states- 
men can  desire,  or  victory  enable  us  to  demand.  The  more 
definite  the  object,  the  more  firm  you  will  be  in  asserting  it. 
How  the  object  is  to  be  effected,  how  these  securities  are  to  be 
obtained,  is  not  the  affair  of  the  House  of  Commons.  The 
strategy  must  be  planned  by  the  allied  Cabinets,  and  its 
execution  entrusted  to  Councils  of  War.  We  in  this  House 
can  only  judge  by  results  ;  and,  however  unfair  that  may  seem 
to  Governments,  it  is  the  sole  course  left  to  us,  unless  we  are 
always  dictating  to  our  allies,  and  hampering  our  generals. 
But  we  thus  make  the  end  of  the  war  purely  protective  ;  we 
cannot  make  the  means  we  adopt  purely  defensive.  In  order 
to  force  Russia  into  our  object  we  must  assail  and  cripple  her 
wherever  she  can  be  crippled  and  assailed.  I  say,  with  the 
right  hon.  gentleman  the  member  for  the  University  of  Oxford, 
do  not  offer  to  her  an  idle  insult,  do  not  slap  her  in  the 
face,  but  paralyse  her  hands.  "  Oh,"  said  a  noble  friend  of 
mine  the  other  night  (Lord  Stanley),  "  it  is  a  wretched  policy  to 
humble  the  foe  that  you  cannot  crush  ;  and  are  you  mad  enough 
to  suppose  that  Russia  can  be  crushed  ? "  Let  my  noble 
friend,  in  the  illustrious  career  which  I  venture  to  prophesy 
lies  before  him,  beware  how  he  ever  endeavours  to  contract  the 
grand  science  of  statesmen  into  scholastic  aphorisms.  No,  we 
cannot  crush  Russia  as  Russia,  but  we  can  crush  her  attempts 
to  be  more  than  Russia.  We  can,  and  we  must,  crush  any 
means  that  enable  her  to  storm  or  to  steal  across  that  tangible 
barrier  which  now  divides  Europe  from  a  Power  that  supports 
the  maxims  of  Machiavelli  with  the  armaments  of  Britain. 
You  might  as  well  have  said  to  William  of  Orange,  "  You 
cannot  crush  Louis  XIV.  ;  how  impolitic  you  are  to  humble 
him  ! "  You  might  as  well  have  said  to  the  burghers  of  Switzer- 
land, "You  cannot  crush  Austria;  don't  vainly  insult  her  by 
limiting  her  privilege  to  crush  yourselves."  William  of  Orange 
did  not  crush  France  as  a  kingdom — Switzerland  did  not  crush 
Austria  as  an  empire ;   but  William   did  crush  the  power  of 


92  Modern  Political  Oral  ions. 

France  to  injure  Holland ;  Switzerland  did  crush  the  power  of 
Austria  to  enslave  her  people  ;  and  in  that  broad  sense  of  the 
word,  by  the  blessing  of  Heaven,  we  will  crush  the  power  of 
Russia  to  invade  her  neighbours  and  convulse  the  world. 

The  right  hon.  gentleman  the  member  for  Manchester  has 
sought  to  frighten  us  by  dwelling  on  the  probable  duration 
of  this  war ;  but  if  you  will  only  be  in  earnest,  and  if  you  will 
limit  yourselves  strictly  to  its  legitimate  object,  I  have  no  fear 
that  the  war  will  be  long.  I  do  not  presume  on  our  recent 
successes,  important  though  they  are,  for  Kertch  is  the 
entrepot  of  all  the  commerce  of  the  Sea  of  Azoff ;  nor  on  the 
exaggerated  estimate  of  the  forces  which  Russia  has  in  Sebas- 
topol,  or  can  bring  to  the  Crimea  ;  nor  on  her  difficulty  through 
any  long  series  of  campaigns  to  transport  and  provision  large 
armies  from  great  distances  ;  nor  on  many  circumstances  which, 
of  late  especially,  tend  to  show  that  for  exertions  at  once 
violent  and  sustained,  her  sinews  are  not  strong  enough  to 
support  her  bulk.  But  I  look  only  to  the  one  fact,  that  in 
these  days  war  is  money  ;  and  that  no  Power  on  earth  can 
carry  on  a  long  war  with  a  short  purse.  Russia's  pecuniary 
resources  are  fast  failing  her.  In  no  country  is  recruiting  so 
costly,  or  attended  with  such  distress  to  the  proprietors  of  the 
soil.  Every  new  levy,  in  depriving  the  nobles  of  their  serfs, 
leaves  poverty  and  discontent  behind ;  while  in  arresting  her 
commercial  intercourse,  you  exhaust  the  only  springs  that  can 
recruit  the  capital  which  she  robs  from  the  land.  In  the  great 
"  History  of  Treaties,"  now  publishing  by  the  Count  de  Garden, 
and  which  must  supersede  all  other  authorities  on  that  subject, 
he  speaks  thus  of  Russia  in  1810  : — 

"  The  closing  of  her  ports,  which  was  the  result  of  her  war  with  England, 
deprived  Russia  of  all  outlet  for  her  exportations,  which,  consisting  chiefly 
of  raw  materials,  such  as  timber,  potash,  iron,  etc.,  could  only  be  trans- 
ported by  sea.  The  balance  of  commerce  thus  fixed  itself  entirely  to  the 
detriment  of  Russia,  and  producing  there  a  disastrous  fall  in  the  course  of 
exchange,  and  a  depreciation  of  the  currency,  menaced  with  ruin  all  the 
financial  resources  of  the  State." 

You  have,  therefore,  always  at  work  for  you,  not  only  your 


Sir  Bulwer  Lytton  on  the  Crimean  War.     93 

fleets  and  armies,  but  the  vital  interests  of  Russia  herself.  She 
cannot  resist  you  long,  provided  you  are  thoroughly  in  earnest. 
She  may  boast  and  dissimulate  to  the  last,  but  rely  on  it  that 
peace  will  come  to  you  suddenly — will,  in  her  proper  name, 
knock  loudly  at  the  door  which  you  do  not  close  against  peace 
herself,  but  against  her  felonious  counterfeit,  who  would  creep 
through  the  opening  disguised  in  her  garments,  and  with  the 
sword  concealed  under  her  veil. 

/  The  noble  Lord,  who  has  just  spoken  with  so  much  honesty 
of  conviction  (Lord  Archibald  Hamilton),  ventured  to  anti- 
cipate the  verdict  of  History.  Let  me  do  the  same.  Let  me 
suppose  that  when  the  future  philanthropist  shall  ask  what 
service  on  the  human  race  did  we,  in  our  generation,  signally 
confer,  some  one — trained,  perhaps,  in  the  schools  of  Oxford, 
or  in  the  Institute  of  Manchester — shall  answer:  "A  Power 
that  commanded  myriads — as  many  as  those  that  under  Xerxes 
exhausted  rivers  in  their  march — embodied  all  the  forces  of 
barbarism  on  the  outskirts  of  civilisation.  Left  there  to  de- 
velop its  own  natural  resources,  no  State  molested,  though  all 
apprehended,  its  growth.  But,  long  pent  by  merciful  nature 
in  its  own  legitimate  domains,  this  Power  schemed  for  the 
outlet  to  its  instinctive  ambition.  To  that  outlet  it  crept  by 
dissimulating  guile,  by  successive  treaties  that,  promising  peace, 
graduated  spoliation  to  the  opportunities  of  fraud.  At  length, 
under  pretexts  too  gross  to  deceive  the  common-sense  of  man- 
kind, it  prepared  to  seize  that  outlet — to  storm  the  feeble  gates 
between  itself  and  the  world  beyond."  Then  the  historian  shall 
say  that  we  in  our  generation — the  united  families  of  England 
and  France — made  ourselves  the  vanguard  of  alarmed  and 
shrinking  Europe,  and  did  not  sheathe  the  sword  until  we  had 
redeemed  the  pledge  to  humanity  made  on  the  faith  of  two 
Christian  sovereigns,  and  ratified  at  those  distant  graves  which 
Liberty  and  Justice  shall  revere  for  ever. 


THE  EARL  OF  ELLENBOROUGH  ON 
THE  POLISH  INSURRECTION. 

House  of  Lords,  June  8th,  1863. 

[The  immediate  cause  of  this  insurrection  was  an  attempt  on  the  part  of 
the  Russian  Government  to  press  into  the  army  all  the  young  men  of  the 
towns  who  betrayed  the  least  sympathy  with  the  patriotic  movement. 
Escaping  into  the  woods  near  the  Austro- Polish  frontier,  the  insur- 
gents were  able  to  harass  the  Russians,  and  also  make  good  their  retreat 
into  a  friendly  country  when  pressed  too  hard.  Their  chief  hope  was  to 
hold  out  until  some  of  the  European  Powers  should  take  up  their  cause.] 

My  Lords, — I  rise  to  ask  the  noble  Earl  the  Secretary  of  State 
for  Foreign  Affairs  (Earl  Russell)  whether  there  has  been  such 
progress  in  the  negotiations  as  to  afford  a  reasonable  hope  of  a 
satisfactory  settlement  of  the  affairs  of  Poland.  I  do  not 
think  the  question  can  be  considered  premature.  The  insurrec- 
tion in  Poland,  which  the  Emperor  ordered  the  authorities  of 
the  country  to  put  down  in  ten  days,  has  existed  for  four 
months  and  a  half;  and  according  to  the  last  accounts,  it  was 
rapidly  extending  itself  to  various  distant  points  in  the  ancient 
provinces  that  belonged  to  Poland  before  1772.  While  diplo- 
matists are  writing  and  consulting,  plunder,  massacre,  and 
incendiarism  are  extending  through  the  whole  country.  My 
Lords,  this  is  not  an  ordinary  case  of  diplomacy.  Generally, 
diplomacy  originates  with  the  Governments  which  conduct  it; 
but  in  this  instance,  1  think  it  may  be  considered  to  have 
originated  witli  the  nations  which  those  Governments  repre- 
sent ;  for  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  except  perhaps  in  Prussia, 
deep  sympathy  has   been   expressed   for  Poland.      When,  some 


Lord  Elk nborough  on  the  Polish  Insurrection.  95 

years  ago,  the  diplomatic  intervention  which  preceded  the 
Crimean  war  was  undertaken,  that  diplomacy  proceeded  from 
statesmen  who  had  in  view  not  a  distant  but  a  coming  danger, 
and  endeavoured  to  avert  that  danger  by  diplomatic  arrange- 
ment ;  but  the  evil  with  which  diplomacy  now  deals  is  a  pre- 
sent existing  evil,  which  has  existed  for  more  than  thirty  years, 
and  has  been  increasing  in  intensity  until  it  has  arrived  at  a 
degree  of  enormity  which  has  compelled  the  people  of  Poland 
to  rise  in  arms,  and  makes  it  impossible  for  the  people  of 
Kurope  to  view  their  condition  with  indifference. 

This  is  a  question  of  humanity.  From  one  end  of  the 
kingdom  of  Poland  to  the  other,  war  is  carried  on  with 
an  atrocity  unknown  in  ordinary  warfare.  It  is  a  question 
of  justice,  because  the  Poles  have  never  had  the  Constitution 
which  was  promised  to  them.  It  is  more  than  that,  it  is  a 
question  of  policy  affecting  not  only  Russia,  but  affecting  every 
State  in  Europe.  It  is  impossible  that  insurrection  can  con- 
tinue in  Poland  without  exciting  an  insurrectionary  feeling 
among  the  turbulent  spirits  of  every  State  in  Europe. 
For  over  160  years  Russia  has  been  endeavouring 
to  establish  her  power  in  Europe — to  secure  to  herself  an 
entrance  into  Europe.  That  entrance  into  Europe  is,  at  the 
present  moment,  denied  to  her.  While  Poland  remains  as  she 
is,  or  even  as  she  has  been  for  several  years,  it  will  be  impos- 
sible for  Russia  to  move  an  army  into  Europe.  She  would 
require  more  than  100,000  men  to  protect  her  communi- 
cations ;  and  the  longer  this  state  of  things  remains  in  Poland, 
the  greater  will  become  the  difficulties  of  Russia.  Depend 
upon  it,  that  whenever  any  part  of  the  Russian  Empire  presents 
a  weakness,  it  will  be  discovered  by  those  who  are  anxious  to 
take  advantage  of  any  opportunity  that  may  be  afforded  for 
acting  against  her.  Circassia  will  be  responsible  to  Poland, 
and  everywhere  there  will  be  a  material  alteration  in  that  posi- 
tion of  strength  which  I  confess,  for  my  part,  I  am  desirous 
that  Russia  should  maintain. 

When  the  Powers  assembled  at  the  Congress  of  Vienna,  they 


96  Modem  Political  Orations. 

participated  in  the  general  feeling  of  distrust  and  apprehension 
of  Russia.  Things  were  then  somewhat  different  from  what 
they  are  now.  In  France,  the  ancient  monarchy  had  been 
restored ;  France  had  suffered  great  losses  ;  her  frontiers  had 
been  thrown  back  to  their  ancient  limits ;  she  was  deemed  to 
be  in  a  state  of  abeyance,  and  no  injury  or  encroachment  was 
apprehended  from  that  quarter.  In  Belgium,  and  on  the 
Rhine,  and  in  Italy,  what  were  then  deemed  securities  had 
been  taken  against  France.  The  great  danger  seemed  to  be  on 
the  side  of  Russia.  Russia  had  performed  great  services  for 
Europe,  but  she  stood  in  her  strength,  and  certainly  evinced  a 
disposition  to  use  that  strength  in  a  manner  that  threatened  the 
independence  and  security  of  other  States.  With  these  feelings, 
this  country  desired,  in  connection  with  Austria  and  Prussia, 
to  establish  in  Poland  a  state  of  things  which,  unfortunately, 
they  did  not  succeed  in  bringing  about.  They  desired  to 
establish  in  Poland  an  independent  kingdom.  Russia  insisted 
on  uniting  the  kingdom  of  Poland  to  herself.  I  confess  that 
even  at  the  present  time,  if  I  could  see  the  map  of  Europe 
arranged  as  I  should  most  desire,  I  should  rejoice  to  see  the 
re-establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  Poland  in  all  its  integrity, 
and  within  the  ancient  limits,  but  under  a  better  Government 
and  with  a  hereditary  monarchy ;  but  I  know  how  visionary  is 
my  hope  of  seeing  that  great  act  of  moral  retribution  accom- 
plished. I  cannot  be  insensible  to  the  changes  that  have  taken 
place  in  France.  We  have  seen  a  change  of  dynasty  in  France  ; 
we  have  seen  her  great  increase  of  strength,  and  we  have  seen 
that  strength  used  with  great  effect  in  Europe.  We  have  seen 
other  material  changes  in  the  distribution  of  power  and  of 
territory  as  established  in  18 15. 

Having  regard  to  those  events,  I  do  not  think  it  would  be 
expedient  to  take  any  measures  which  would  permanently 
deprive  Russia  of  her  power  of  interfering,  and  I  hope  usefully 
interfering,  for  the  maintenance  of  a  Conservative  policy  in 
Europe.  We  cannot  now  preserve  the  balance  of  power  in 
Europe  without  the  intervention  of  Russia.      It  is  upon  that 


Lord Ellenbo rough  on  the  Polish  Insurrection.  97 

account  that,  as  a  friend  of  Russia  as  well  as  a  friend  of 
Poland,  I  do  earnestly  desire  to  see  an  end  put  to  the  state  of 
things  which  now  exists.  When  the  Congress  of  Vienna  im- 
posed on  Russia  the  duty  of  giving  a  representative  national 
Constitution  to  Poland,  she  imposed  on  her  a  condition  which, 
in  the  political  condition  of  Russia,  it  was  impossible  for  her 
to  perform.  I  say  impossible,  because  I  hold  it  to  be  im- 
possible to  give  a  really  good  government,  of  a  Constitutional 
form,  to  a  country  of  which  the  Sovereign  is  a  foreign  despot  of 
enurmous  power,  educated  in  the  practice  of  despotism,  and 
ready  on  all  occasions  to  exercise  his  despotic  authority,  and 
throw  the  sword  of  Brennus  into  the  scale  to  turn  it  in  his 
favour.  There  was,  and  still  is,  that  difficulty,  which  it  is  im- 
possible to  overcome,  and  which  must  at  all  times  make  it 
impossible  to  establish  a  really  good  government  in  Poland 
under  a  despotic  foreign  Sovereign,  capable  of  using  on  all 
occasions  his  arbitrary  power.  My  Lords,  a  Constitutional 
government  can  only  exist  with  benefit  to  the  people  where 
there  is  mutual  confidence  between  the  Sovereign  and  the 
people,  and  where  there  are  mutual  interests,  where  there  is  a 
mutual  desire  to  support  the  Constitution,  and  where,  above 
all,  the  Sovereign  is  attached  to  his  people,  and  depends  on 
them  for  his  position. 

All  these  circumstances  are  wanting  in  the  case  of  Russia. 
Even  were  she  so  disposed,  the  difficulties  which  she  has  to 
encounter  it  would  be  impossible  for  her  to  overcome.  But, 
my  Lords,  there  never  has  been  any  attempt  to  overcome  those 
difficulties.  We  are  told  in  the  papers  which  have  been  laid 
on  the  table  of  the  House,  that  up  to  183 1  no  attempt  had 
been  made  to  give  that  Constitution  to  Poland  which  she  had 
a  right  to,  in  accordance  with  the  Treaty  of  Vienna.  We  know 
what  has  taken  place  since.  We  know  that  there  has  been  no 
security  either  for  property  or  for  person.  Nothing  could  be 
more  cruel  and  exhaustive  than  the  conscription.  Every  man 
must  have  felt  that  his  family,  his  life,  and  his  property  de- 
pended on  the  will  of  a  despot ;  and  it  was  utterly  impossible 

G 


98  Modern  Political  Orations. 

for  the  country  to  prosper  or  to  be  contented.  That  was  the 
case  before  the  last  instance  of  violent  despotism — which  the 
noble  Earl  the  Foreign  Secretary  properly  called  a  "proscrip- 
tion " — was  perpetrated  in  Russia.  That  proscription  came  on 
the  people  of  Poland  as  one  of  the  plagues  of  Egypt,  destroying 
in  one  night  the  first-born  in  every  family.  It  created  a  deep 
chasm  between  the  people  and  the  Sovereign,  which  it  was 
impossible  ever  to  pass.  It  destroyed  all  confidence,  all  pos- 
sibility of  ever  trusting  the  word  of  the  Sovereign,  who  had 
violated  his  obligations.  If  the  Emperor  puts  forth  his  hand 
and  offers  it  to  the  people  of  Poland,  how  can  they  take  it  ? 
There  is  blood  upon  that  hand.  It  is  the  blood  of  the 
people  of  Poland,  of  the  families  of  those  to  whom  he 
offers  it — blood  shed  in  the  perpetration  of  an  iniquity  which 
has  no  parallel  in  Europe. 

My  Lords,  I  can  come  to  no  other  conclusion  than  this : 
That  to  attempt  to  give  good  government  to  the  people  of 
Poland  while  the  Emperor  of  Russia  directly  exercises  authority 
in  that  country  is  a  thing  impossible,  and  that  there  are  no 
guarantees — of  which  the  noble  Earl  spoke  some  time  ago — 
which  could  secure  it.  It  is  a  thing  impossible,  and  therefore 
it  is  a  thing  which  no  prudent  person  would"  endeavour  to 
obtain.  But  it  is  most  desirable  that  Russia  should  endeavour 
to  accomplish  two  objects — that  she  should  give  good  govern- 
ment to  Poland,  and,  at  the  same  time,  preserve  her  power  of 
entering  Europe  by  the  Vistula.  I  know  but  one  course  of 
proceeding  by  which  that  double  object  can  be  accomplished. 
The  wise  course  for  Russia  to  pursue  would  be  to  propose  to 
dissever  the  connection  which  was  established  at  Vienna  be- 
tween the  Russian  Empire  and  Poland,  then  declared  insepar- 
able, and  to  place  Poland,  with  such  arrangements  as  to  the 
political  relations  between  her  and  Russia  as  might  be  deemed 
expedient,  as  an  independent  country  with  respect  to  internal 
government,  under  the  Sovereignty  of  a  Prince  of  her  own 
family.  I  do  trust  that  Her  .Majesty's  Government  and  the 
other  Powers  of  Europe  which  were  parties  to  the  Treaty  of 


Lord  Ellcnborough  on  the  Polish  Insurrection.   99 

Vienna  would  willingly  accept  this  compromise,  and  consider 
it  as  a  sufficient  performance  of  the  obligations  which  were 
imposed  upon  Russia  at  the  Congress  of  Vienna.  Further,  I 
do  hope  that  the  Poles  themselves  would  have  the  good  sense  to 
accept  it,  and  that  no  visionary  ideas  of  future  grandeur,  however 
gratifying  they  might  be  to  their  pride  as  a  nation — great  as 
their  pride  justly  is — would  induce  them  to  decline  to  accept 
that  which,  for  the  present  at  least,  would  give  security  for  the 
government  of  Poland  and  the  permanent  peace  of  that  country. 
My  Lords,  I  do  not  know  what  value  is  to  be  attached  to 
the  statements  I  have  seen  in  the  foreign  rather  than  the 
English  papers  ;  but  I  see  it  there  stated  that  it  has  been 
suggested  by  the  Government  of  this  country,  and  has  been 
at  last  acquiesced  in  by  foreign  Powers,  that  an  armistice 
should  be  proposed  to  the  Emperor  of  Russia  and  to  the 
insurgents  in  Poland.  I  believe  that  measure  to  be  utterly 
impracticable.  There  are  wanting  on  the  side  of  the  Poles 
three  things  essential,  as  it  has  always  been  supposed,  to  the 
making  of  an  armistice — an  ostensibly  acknowledged  Govern- 
ment with  which  to  contract  it ;  an  army  for  which  to  contract ; 
nor  is  there  any  possibility  of  making  that  demarcation  of 
limits  which  is  essential  in  all  cases  of  armistice.  The  only 
force  possessed  by  the  Poles  is  one  which  is  here  and  every- 
where, which  is  here  to-day  and  gone  to-morrow.  The  Polish 
insurgents  collect  only  to  strike.  They  disappear  when  they 
have  struck  their  blow.  They  have  no  regular,  no  acknow- 
ledged limits  within  which  they  act.  In  an  armistice  the  two 
sides  keep  their  arms.  But  what  is  required  here  is  that  one 
side  should  lay  down  its  arms.  There  is  no  other  mode  by 
which  the  Poles  can  perform  their  part  of  the  arrangement. 
But  what  is  it  to  lay  down  their  arms?  You  may  maintain, 
and  you  may  extend  an  insurrection,  but  you  cannot  renew  it 
when  you  have  once  thrown  down  your  arms.  And  what  is  to 
be  the  position  of  the  insurgents  in  the  interval  during  the 
time  in  which  the  diplomatists — who  are  proverbially  not  the 
most   rapid    in   their   movements— attempt  to   bring  about  a 


ioo  Modern  Political  Orations. 

permanent  arrangement  ?  From  the  penalties  of  treason  the 
Poles  might  be  relieved,  but  they  would  be  still  subject  to  the 
criminal  law.  Russian  officers  now  rule  throughout  every  parish 
in  Poland.  They  have  at  their  back  what  are  called  peasant 
guards.  Every  man  who  has  property,  who  is  supposed  to  have 
patriotic  feelings,  is  denounced,  and  there  is  a  general  sequestra- 
tion of  the  property  of  such  persons.  Even  in  Lithuania, 
which  is  not  a  part  of  the  Kingdom  of  Poland,  no  peasant  is 
now  permitted  to  pay  rent  to  his  landlord.  He  pays  it  to  the 
State,  and  the  State  hereafter,  if  satisfied  of  the  good  conduct  of 
the  proprietor,  will  give  him  the  balance  which  is  due  to  him. 

This  is  a  state  of  things  which  we  know  not  as  having  existed 
at  any  time  in  any  part  of  the  world,  and  all  this  machinery 
would  remain  to  afflict  Poland  during  the  long  period  of 
negotiation  which  must  ensue  if  an  armistice  were  agreed  upon. 
Does  the  noble  Earl,  or  does  Her  Majesty's  Government, 
suppose  that  in  diplomacy  by  itself  there  is  any  strength  at  all  ? 
Its  strength  is  in  the  force  by  which  it  is  supported — in  the 
force  behind.  The  strength  of  the  Poles  in  diplomacy  is  the 
strength  of  the  insurrection.  It  is  no  other.  And,  depend 
upon  it,  great  as  the  sufferings  of  the  Poles  have  been,  they 
might  have  suffered  for  years  longer ;  but  if  they  had  suffered 
in  tranquillity  and  in  silence,  never  would  the  sympathy  of 
Europe  have  been  extended  to  them.  They  have  now  the 
sympathy  of  Europe  because  they  have  had  the  courage  and 
the  spirit  to  rise  against  their  oppressors.  It  is  because  they 
show  themselves  worthy  of  Liberty  that  all  Europe  feels  they 
ought  to  possess  it.  All  I  can  say  to  the  Poles  is  :  "  Persevere  ! 
Keep  your  arms  !  Strike  down  your  enemies  wherever  you 
can  reach  them  !  You  have  embarked  in  a  career  of  honour, 
of  patriotism,  and  of  glory.  You  may  fall  in  the  field ;  but 
it  is  better  to  fall  there  than  to  die  in  the  ranks  of  your 
enemies.  Persevere!  And  depend  upon  it,  having  adopted 
this  course — adopted,  perhaps,  by  despair,  but  sanctioned 
by  reason  and  by  justice — you  will  have  the  respect  of  all  men, 
and  I  trust  that  Providence  will  bless  your  efforts." 


JOHN    BRIGHT   ON    SUSPENSION    OF 
THE    HABEAS   CORPUS   ACT. 

House  of  Commons,  February  17TH,  1866. 

[The  disturbed  state  of  Ireland  rendered  it  necessary,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Government,  to  suspend  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act,  and  so  give  the  Lord- 
Lieutenant  unlimited  power  to  arrest  and  detain  suspected  persons.  For 
this  purpose  an  extraordinary  sitting  was  called  in  both  Houses  of  Parlia- 
ment on  Saturday,  February  17th,  1866,  and  the  Bill  was  run  through  at 
once,  receiving  the  Royal  Assent  at  twenty  minutes  to  one  o'clock  on 
Sunday  morning.] 

I  owe  an  apology  to  the  Irish  Members  for  stepping  in  to 
make  an  observation  to  the  House  on  this  question.  My 
strong  interest  in  the  affairs  of  their  country,  ever  since  I 
came  into  Parliament,  will  be  my  sufficient  excuse.  The 
Secretary  of  State  (Sir  George  Grey),  on  the  part  of  the 
Government  of  which  he  is  a  member,  has  called  us  together 
on  an  unusual  day  and  at  an  unusual  hour,  to  consider  a 
proposition  of  the  greatest  magnitude,  and  which  we  are 
informed  is  one  of  extreme  urgency.  If  it  be  so,  I  hope  it 
will  not  be  understood  that  we  are  here  merely  to  carry  out 
the  behests  of  the  Administration ;  but  that  we  are  to  be 
permitted,  if  we  choose,  to  observe  upon  this  measure,  and 
if  possible  to  say  something  which  may  mitigate  the  apparent 
harshness  which  the  Government  feels  itself  compelled  to 
pursue.  It  is  now  more  than  twenty-two  years  since  I  was 
permitted  to  take  my  seat  in  this  House.  During  that  time  I 
have,  on  many  occasions,  with  great  favour,  been  allowed  to 


102  Modern  Political  Orations. 

address  it ;  but  I  declare  that  during  the  whole  of  that  period 
I  have  never  risen  to  speak  here  under  so  strong  a  feeling,  as 
a  member  of  the  House,  of  shame,  and  of  humiliation,  as  that 
by  which  I  feel  myself  oppressed  at  this  moment.  The 
Secretary  of  State  proposes  —  as  the  right  hon.  gentleman 
himself ; has*  said — to  deprive  no  inconsiderable  portion  of  the 
subjects  of  the  Queen— our"  countrymen,  within  the  United 
Kingdom — of  the  commonest,  of  the  most  precious,  and  of  the 
most  sacred  right  of  the  English  Constitution  :  the  right  to 
their  personal  freedom.  From  the  statement  of  the  Secretary 
of  State  it  is  clear  that  this  is  not  asked  to  be  done,  or  required 
to  be  done,  with  reference  only  to  a  small  section  of  the 
Irish  people.  He  has  named  great  counties,  wide  districts, 
whole  provinces  over  which  this  alleged  and  undoubted  dis- 
affection has  spread,  and  has  proposed  that  five  or  six  millions 
of  the  inhabitants  of  the  United  Kingdom  shall  suffer  the  loss 
of  that  right  of  personal  freedom  that  is  guaranteed  to  all  Her 
Majesty's  subjects  by  the  Constitution  of  these  realms. 

Now,  I  do  not  believe  that  the  Secretary  of  State  has  over- 
stated his  case  for  the  purpose  of  inducing  the  House  to  con- 
sent to  his  proposition.  I  believe  that  if  the  majority  of  the 
people  of  Ireland,  counted  fairly  out,  had  their  will,  and  if  they 
had  the  power,  they  would  unmoor  the  island  from  its  fasten- 
ings, and  move  it  at  least  two  thousand  miles  to  the  west.  And 
I  believe,  further,  that  if  by  conspiracy,  or  insurrection,  or  by 
that  open  agitation  to  which  alone  I  ever  would  give  any 
favour  or  consent,  they  could  shake  off  the  authority,  I  will  not 
say  of  the  English  Crown,  but  of  the  Imperial  Parliament,  they 
would  gladly  do  so.  An  hon.  member  from  Ireland  a  few 
nights  ago  referred  to  the  character  of  the  Irish  people.  He 
said,  and  I  believe  it  is  true,  that  there  is  no  Christian  nation 
with  which  we  are  acquainted  amongst  the  people  of  which 
crime  of  the  ordinal)'  character,  as  we  reckon  it  in  this  country, 
is  so  rare  as  it  is  amongst  his  countrymen.  He  might  have 
said,  also,  that  there  is  no  people  whatever  they  may  he  at 
home— more    ndustrious  than  his  countrymen  in  every  other 


John  Bright  on  Suspension  of  Habeas  Corpus.  103 

country  but  their  own.  He  might  have  said  more — that  they 
are  a  people  of  a  cheerful  and  joyous  temperament.  He  might 
have  said  more  than  this — that  they  are  singularly  grateful  for 
kindnesses  shown  to  them,  and  that  of  all  the  people  of  our 
race  they  arc  filled  with  the  strongest  sentiments  of  veneration. 
And  yet,  with  such  materials,  and  with  such  a  people,  after 
centuries  of  government — after  sixty-five  years  of  government 
by  this  House — you  have  them  embittered  against  your  rule, 
and  anxious  only  to  throw  off  the  authority  of  the  Crown  and 
Queen  of  these  realms.  Now,  this  is  not  a  single  occasion  we 
are  discussing.  This  is  merely  an  access  of  the  complaint 
Ireland  has  been  suffering  under  during  the  lifetime  of  the 
oldest  man  in  this  House:  of  chronic  insurrection.  No  man 
can  deny  this.  I  dare  say  a  large  number  of  the  members  of 
this  House  had,  at  the  time  to  which  the  right  hon.  member 
for  Buckinghamshire  referred,  heard  the  same  speech  on  the 
same  subject  from  the  same  Minister  to  whom  we  have  listened 
to-day.  [Sir  G.  Grew— "  No  !  "]  I  certainly  thought  I  heard 
the  right  hon.  gentleman  the  Secretary  of  State  for  the  Home 
Department  make  a  speech  before  on  the  same  question,  but 
he  was  a  Minister  of  the  Government  on  whose  behalf  a 
similar  speech  was  made  on  the  occasion  referred  to,  and  no 
doubt  concurred  in  every  word  that  was  uttered  by  his 
colleague. 

Sixty-five  years  ago  this  country  undertook  to  govern  Ireland. 
I  will  say  nothing  of  the  manner  in  which  that  duty  was  brought 
upon  us  except  this— that  it  was  by  proceedings  disgraceful 
and  corrupt  to  the  last  degree.  I  will  say  nothing  of  the  pre- 
tences under  which  it  was  brought  about  but  this — that  the 
English  Parliament  and  people,  and  the  Irish  people,  too,  were 
told,  if  you  once  get  rid  of  the  Irish  Parliament  it  will  dethrone 
for  ever  Irish  factions,  and  with  a  united  Parliament  we  shall 
become  a  united,  and  stronger,  and  happier  people.  Now, 
during  these  sixty-five  years — and  on  this  point  I  ask  for  the 
attention  of  the  right  hon.  gentleman  who  has  just  spoken  (Mr 
Disraeli) — there  are  only  three  considerable  measures  which 


104  Modern  Political  Orations. 

Parliament  has  passed  in  the  interests  of  Ireland.  One  of 
them  was  the  measure  of  1829,  for  the  emancipation  of  the 
Catholics  and  to  permit  them  to  have  seats  in  this  House. 
,But  that  measure,  so  just,  so  essential,  and  which,  of  course,  is 
not  ever  to  be  recalled,  was  a  measure  which  the  chief  Minister 
of  the  day,  a  great  soldier,  and  a  great  judge  of  military 
matters  (the  Duke  of  Wellington),  admitted  was  passed  in  the 
face  of  the  menace  and  only  because  of  the  danger  of  civil 
war.  The  other  two  measures  to  which  I  have  referred  are 
the  measure  for  the  relief  of  the  poor,  and  the  measure  for  the 
sale  of  the  encumbered  estates  ;  and  those  measures  were  intro- 
duced to  the  House  and  passed  through  the  House  in  the 
emergency  of  a  famine  more  severe  than  any  that  has  desolated 
any  Christian  country  of  the  world  within  the  last  four  hundred 
years. 

Except  on  these  two  emergencies,  I  appeal  to  every  Irish 
member,  and  to  every  English  member  who  has  paid  any 
attention  to  the  matter,  whether  the  statement  is  not  true  that 
this  Parliament  has  done  nothing  for  the  people  of  Ireland. 
And,  more  than  that,  their  complaints  have  been  met — com- 
plaints of  their  sufferings  have  been  met — often  by  denial,  often 
by  insult,  often  by  contempt.  And  within  the  last  few  years 
we  have  heard  from  this  very  Treasury  Bench  observations 
with  regard  to  Ireland  which  no  friend  of  Ireland,  or  of 
England,  and  no  Minister  of  the  Crown,  ought  to  have  uttered 
with  regard  to  that  country.  Twice  in  my  Parliamentary  life 
this  thing  has  been  done — at  least,  by  the  close  of  this  day  will 
have  been  done — and  measures  of  repression — measures  for  the 
suspension  of  the  civil  rights  of  the  Irish  people — have  been 
brought  into  Parliament  and  passed  with  extreme  and  unusual 
rapidity.  I  have  not  risen  to  blame  the  Secretary  of  State,  or 
to  blame  his  colleagues,  for  the  act  of  to  day.  There  may  be 
circumstances  to  justify  a  proposition  of  this  kind,  and  I  am 
not  here  to  deny  that  these  circumstances  now  exist ;  but  what 
I  complain  of  is  this :  there  is  no  statesmanship  merely  in  acts  of 
force  and  acts  of  repression.     And  more  than  tluit,  I  have  not 


John  Bright  on  Suspension  of  Habeas  Corpus.  105 

observed  since  I  have  been  in  Parliament  anything  on  this 
Irish  question  that  approaches  to  the  dignity  of  statesmanship. 
There  has  been,  I  admit,  an  improved  administration  in  Ireland. 
There  have  been  Lord-Lieutenants  anxious  to  be  just,  and 
there  is  one  there  now  who  is  probably  as  anxious  to  do  justice 
as  any  man.  We  have  observed  generally  in  the  recent  trials  a 
better  tone  and  temper  than  were  ever  witnessed  under  similar 
circumstances  in  Ireland  before.  But  if  I  go  back  to  the 
Ministers  who  have  sat  on  the  Treasury  Bench  since  I  first 
came  into  this  House — Sir  Robert  Peel  first,  then  Lord  John 
Russell,  then  Lord  Aberdeen,  then  Lord  Derby,  then  Lord 
Palmerston,  then  Lord  Derby  again,  then  Lord  Palmerston 
again,  and  now  Earl  Russell — I  say  that,  with  regard  to  all  these 
men,  there  has  not  been  any  approach  to  anything  that  History 
will  describe  as  statesmanship  on  the  part  of  the  English 
Government  towards  Ireland.  There  were  Coercion  Bills  in 
abundance — Arms  Bills  Session  after  Session — lamentations 
like  that  of  the  right  hon.  gentleman  the  member  for  Bucking- 
hamshire, that  the  suspension  of  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act  was 
not  made  perpetual  by  a  clause  which  he  laments  was  repealed. 
There  have  been  Acts  for  the  suspension  of  the  Habeas  Corpus 
Act,  like  that  which  we  are  now  discussing ;  but  there  has  been 
no  statesmanship.  Men,  the  most  clumsy,  and  brutal,  can  do 
these  things;  but  we  want  men  of  higher  temper — men  of 
higher  genius — men  of  higher  patriotism  to  deal  with  the 
affairs  of  Ireland. 

I  should  like  to  know  if  those  statesmen  who  hold  great 
offices  have  themselves  comprehended  the  nature  of  this 
question.  If  they  have  not,  they  have  been  manifestly 
ignorant ;  and  if  they  have  comprehended  it,  they  have  not 
dealt  with  it ;  they  have  concealed  that  which  they  knew  from 
the  people,  and  evaded  the  duty  they  owe  to  their  Sovereign. 
I  do  not  want  to  speak  disrespectfully  of  men  in  office.  It  is 
not  my  custom  in  this  House.  I  know  something  of  the 
worrying  labours  to  which  they  are  subjected,  and  I  know  how, 
from  day  to  day,  they  bear  the  burden  of  the  labour  imposed 


106  Modern  Political  Orations. 

upon  them  ;  but  still  I  lament  that  those  who  wear  the  garb, 
enjoy  the  emoluments — and  I  had  almost  said,  usurp  the 
dignity  of  statesmanship — sink  themselves  merely  into  respect- 
able and  honourable  administrators,  when  there  is  a  whole 
nation  under  the  Sovereignty  of  the  Queen  calling  for  all  their 
anxious  thoughts — calling  for  the  highest  exercise  of  the  highest 
qualities  of  the  statesman.  I  put  the  question  to  the  Chan- 
cellor of  the  Exchequer  (Mr  Gladstone).  He  is  the  only  man 
of  this  Government  whom  I  have  heard  of  late  years  that  has 
spoken  as  if  he  comprehended  this  question,  and  he  made  a 
speech  in  the  last  Session  of  Parliament  that  was  not  without 
its  influence  both  in  England  and  in  Ireland.  I  should  like 
to  ask  him  whether  this  Irish  question  is  above  the  stature  of 
himself  and  his  colleagues?  If  it  be,  I  ask  them  to  come 
down  from  the  high  places  which  they  occupy,  and  try  to  learn 
the  art  of  legislation  and  government  before  they  practise  it. 
I  believe  myself,  if  we  could  divest  ourselves  of  the  feelings 
engendered  by  party  strife,  we  might  come  to  some  better 
results.  Take  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer.  Is  there  in 
any  legislative  assembly  in  the  world  a  man,  as  the  world 
judges,  of  more  transcendent  capacity  ?  I  will  say  even,  Is 
there  a  man  with  a  more  honest  wish  to  do  good  to  the  country 
in  which  he  occupies  such  a  conspicuous  place?  Take  the 
right  hon.  gentleman  opposite,  the  Leader  of  the  Oppo- 
sition (Mr  Disraeli).  Is  there  in  any  legislative  assembly  in 
the  world,  at  this  moment,  a  man  leading  an  Opposition  of 
more  genius  for  his  position,  who  has  given  in  every  way  but 
one  in  which  proof  can  be  given  that  he  is  competent  to  the 
highest  duties  of  the  highest  offices  of  the  State  ?  Well,  but 
these  men — great  men  whom  we  on  this  side  and  you  on  that 
side  to  a  large  extent  admire  and  follow — fight  for  office,  and 
the  result  is,  they  sit  alternately  one  on  this  side  and  one  on 
that.  But  suppose  it  were  possible  for  these  men,  with  their 
intellects,  with  their  far-reaching  vision,  to  examine  this  ques- 
tion thoroughly,  and  to  say  tor  once,  whether  this  leads  to  office, 
and  to  the   miserable  notoriety  that   men  call   Kami',   which 


John  Bright  on  Suspension  oj  Habeas  Corpus.  107 

springs  from  office,  or  not :  "  If  it  be  possible,  we  will  act  with 
loyalty  to  the  Sovereign  and  justice  to  the  people ;  and  if  it 
be  possible,  we  will  make  Ireland  a  strength  and  not  a  weak- 
ness to  the  British  Empire."  It  is  on  account  of  this  fighting 
with  party,  and  for  party,  and  for  the  gains  which  party  gives, 
that  there  is  so  little  result  from  the  great  intellects  of  such 
men  as  these.     Like  the  captive  Samson  of  old — 

"  To  grind  in  brazen  fetters,  under  task, 
With  their  Heaven-gifted  strength  " — 

and  the  country  and  the  world  gain  little  by  those  faculties 
which  God  has  given  them  for  the  blessing  of  the  country  and 
the  world. 

The  Secretary  of  State  and  the  right  hon.  gentleman 
opposite,  even  in  stronger  language,  have  referred  to  the 
unhappy  fact  that  much  of  what  now  exists  in  Ireland  has 
been  brought  there  from  the  United  States  of  America.  That 
is  not  a  fact  for  us  to  console  ourselves  with  ;  it  only  adds  to 
the  gravity  and  the  difficulty  of  this  question.  You  may 
depend  upon  it  that  if  the  Irish  in  America,  having  left  this 
country,  settle  there  with  so  strong  a  hostility  to  us,  they  have 
had  their  reasons ;  and  if,  being  there  with  that  feeling  of  affec- 
tion for  their  own  country  which  in  all  other  cases  in  which 
we  are  not  concerned  we  admire  and  reverence,  they  interfere 
in  Ireland  and  stir  up  there  the  sedition  that  now  exists,  depend 
upon  it  there  is  in  the  condition  of  Ireland  a  state  of  things 
which  greatly  favours  their  attempts.  There  can  be  no  con- 
tinued fire  without  fuel,  and  all  the  Irish  in  America,  and  all 
the  citizens  of  America,  united  together,  with  all  their  organ- 
isation and  all  their  vast  resources,  would  not  in  England  or 
in  Scotland  raise  the  very  slightest  flame  of  sedition  or  of 
insurrectionary  movement.  I  want  to  know  why  they  can  do 
it  in  Ireland.  Are  you  to  say,  as  some  people  say  in  America 
and  in  Jamaica,  when  speaking  of  the  black  man,  that 
"nothing  can  be  made  of  the  Irishman"?  Everything  can 
be  made  of  him  in  every  country  but  his  own.     When  he  has 


io8  Modern  Political  Orations. 

passed  through  the  American  school — I  speak  of  him  as  a 
child,  or  in  the  second  generation  of  the  Irish  emigrant  in  that 
country — he  is  as  industrious,  as  frugal,  as  independent,  as 
loyal,  as  good  a  citizen  of  the  American  Republic  as  any  man 
born  within  the  dominions  of  that  Power.  Why  is  it  not  so  in 
Ireland  ?  I  have  asked  the  question  before,  and  I  will  ask  it 
again  ;  it  is  a  pertinent  question,  and  it  demands  an  answer. 
Why  is  it  that  no  Scotchman  who  leaves  Scotland — and  the 
Scotch  have  been  taunted  and  ridiculed  for  being  so  fond  of 
leaving  their  country  for  a  better  climate  and  a  better  soil — 
how  comes  it,  I  ask,  that  no  Scotchman  who  emigrates  to  the 
United  States,  and  no  Englishman  who  plants  himself  there, 
cherishes  the  smallest  hostility  to  the  people,  to  the  institutions, 
or  to  the  Government  of  his  native  country  ?  Why  does 
every  Irishman  who  leaves  his  country  and  goes  to  the  United 
States  immediately  settle  himself  down  there,  resolved  to  better 
his  condition  in  life,  but  with  a  feeling  of  ineradicable  hatred 
to  the  laws  and  institutions  of  the  land  of  his  birth?  Is  not 
that  a  question  for  statesmanship  ?  If  the  Secretary  of  State, 
since  his  last  measure  was  brought  in,  now  eighteen  years  ago, 
had  had  time  in  the  multiplicity  of  his  duties  to  consider  this 
question,  possibly,  instead  of  now  moving  for  the  suspension  of 
the  Habeas  Corpus  Act,  he  might  have  been  rejoicing  at  the 
universal  loyalty  which  prevailed,  not  throughout  Great  Britain 
only,  but  throughout  the  whole  population  of  Ireland.  I 
spent  two  autumns  in  Ireland  in  the  years  1849  and  1852,  and 
I  recollect  making  a  speech  in  this  House  not  long  afterwards 
which  some  persons  thought  was  not  very  wide  of  the  mark. 
I  recommended  the  Ministers  of  that  time  to  take  an  oppor- 
tunity to  hold  an  Irish  Session  of  the  Imperial  Parliament — 
to  have  no  great  questions  discussed  connected  with  the 
ordinary  matters  which  are  brought  before  us,  but  to  keep  Par- 
liament to  the  consideration  of  this  Irish  question  solely,  and 
to  deal  with  those  great  matters  which  are  constant  sources  of 
complaint;  and  I  said  thai  a  Session  that  was  so  devoted  to 
such   a  blessed  and    holy    work  would  be   a    Session,    if   it    were 


John  Bright  on  Suspension  of  Habeas  Corpus.  109 

successful,  that  would  stand  forth  in  all  our  future  history  as 
one  of  the  noblest  which  had  ever  passed  in  the  annals  of  the 
Imperial  Parliament; 

Now,  Sir,  a  few  days  ago  everybody  in  this  House,  with  two 
or  three  exceptions,  was  taking  an  oath  at  that  table.  It  is 
called  the  Oath  of  Allegiance.  It  is  meant  at  once  to  express 
loyalty,  and  to  keep  men  loyal.  I  do  not  think  it  generally 
does  bind  men  to  loyalty,  if  they  have  not  loyalty  without  it. 
I  hold  loyalty  to  consist,  in  a  country  like  this,  as  much  in 
doing  justice  to  the  people  as  in  guarding  the  Crown — for  I 
believe  there  is  no  guardianship  of  the  Crown,  in  a  country  like 
this,  where  the  Crown  is  not  supposed  to  rest  absolutely  upon 
force,  so  safe  as  that  of  which  we  know  more  in  our  day 
probably  than  has  been  known  in  former  periods  of  our  history, 
when  the  occupant  of  the  throne  is  respected,  admired,  and 
loved  by  the  general  people.  Now,  how  comes  it  that  these 
great  statesmen  whom  I  have  named,  with  all  their  colleagues, 
some  of  them  as  eminent  almost  as  their  leaders,  have  never 
tried  what  they  could  do — have  never  shown  their  loyalty  to 
the  Crown  by  endeavouring  to  make  the  Queen  as  safe  in  the 
hearts  of  the  people  of  Ireland  as  she  is  in  the  hearts  of  the 
people  of  England  and  of  Scotland  ?  Bear  in  mind  that  the 
Queen  of  England  can  do  almost  nothing  in  these  matters. 
By  our  Constitution  the  Crown  can  take  no  direct  part  in -them. 
The  Crown  cannot  direct  the  policy  of  the  Government — nay, 
the  Crown  cannot,  without  the  consent  of  this  House,  even 
select  its  Ministers ;  therefore  the  Crown  is  helpless  in  this 
matter.  And  we  have  in  this  country  a  Queen  who,  in  all  the 
civilised  nations  of  the  world,  is  looked  upon  as  a  model  of  a 
Sovereign,  and  yet  her  name  and  fame  are  discredited  and 
dishonoured  by  circumstances  such  as  those  which  have  twice 
during  her  reign  called  us  together  to  agree  to  a  proposition 
like  that  which  is  brought  before  us  to-day.  Now,  there  is  an 
instructive  anecdote  to  be  found  in  the  annals  of  the  Chinese 
Empire.  In  a  remote  province  there  was  an  insurrection. 
The  Emperor  put  down  the  insurrection,  but  he  abased  and 


1 1  o  Modern  Political  Orations. 

humbled  himself  before  his  people,  and  said  that  if  he  had 
been  guilty  of  neglect,  he  acknowledged  his  guilt,  and  he 
humbled  himself  before  those  on  whom  he  had  brought  the 
evil  of  an  insurrection  in  one  of  his  provinces.  The  Queen  of 
these  realms  is  not  so  responsible.  She  cannot  thus  humble 
herself;  but  I  say  that  your  statesmen  for  the  last  sixty — for 
the  last  forty — years  are  thus  guilty,  and  they  ought  to  humble 
themselves  before  the  people  of  this  country  for  their  neglect. 

But  I  have  heard  from  members  in  this  House — I  have  seen 
much  writing  in  newspapers — and  I  have  heard  of  speeches 
elsewhere,  in  which  some  of  us,  who  advocate  what  we  believe 
to  be  a  great  and  high  morality  in  public  affairs,  are  charged 
with  dislike  to  the  institutions,  and  even  disloyalty  to  the 
dynasty  which  rules  in  England.  There  can  be  nothing  more 
offensive,  nothing  more  unjust,  nothing  more  utterly  false.  We 
who  ask  Parliament,  in  dealing  with  Ireland,  to  deal  with  it 
upon  the  unchangeable  principle  of  justice,  are  the  friends  of 
the  people,  and  the  really  loyal  advisers  and  supporters  of  the 
Throne.  All  history  teaches  us  that  it  is  not  in  human  nature 
that  men  should  be  content  under  any  system  of  legislation 
and  of  institutions  such  as  exists  in  Ireland.  You  may  pass  this 
Bill,  you  may  put  the  Home  Secretary's  five  hundred  men  in 
gaol — you  may  do  all  this,  and  suppress  the  conspiracy,  and 
put  dbwn  the  insurrection  ;  but  the  moment  it  is  suppressed 
here  will  still  remain  the  germs  of  this  malady,  and  from  these 
germs  will  spring  up,  as  heretofore,  another  crop  of  insurrection 
and  another  harvest  of  misfortune.  And  it  may  be  that  those 
who  sit  here  eighteen  years  after  this  moment  will  find  another 
Ministry  and  another  Secretary  of  State  to  propose  to  you 
another  administration  of  the  same  ever-failing  and  ever 
poisonous  medicine.  T  say  there  is  a  mode  of  making  Ireland 
loyal.  I  say  that  the  Parliament  of  England,  having  abolished 
the  Parliament  of  Ireland,  is  doubly  bound  to  examine  what 
that  modr  is,  and,  if  it  can  discover  it,  to  adopt  it.  I  say  thai 
the  Minister  who  occupies  office  in  this  country  merely  that  he 
may  carry  on  the  daily  routine  of  administration,   who  dares 


John  Bright  on  Suspension  of  Habeas  Corpus,  i  i  i 

not  grapple  with  this  question,  who  dares  not  go  into  Opposition, 
and  who  will  sit  anywhere  except  where  he  can  tell  his  mind 
freely  to  the  House  and  the  country,  may  have  a  high  position 
in  this  country,  but  he  is  not  a  statesman,  nor  is  he  worthy  of 
the  name. 

Sir,  I  shall  not  oppose  the  proposition  of  the  right  hon. 
gentleman.  The  circumstances,  I  presume,  are  such,  that  the 
course  which  is  about  to  be  pursued  is  perhaps  the  only 
merciful  course  for  Ireland.  But  I  suppose  it  is  not  the  inten- 
tion of  the  Government,  in  the  case  of  persons  who  are 
arrested,  and  against  whom  any  just  complaint  can  be  made,  to 
do  anything  more  than  that  which  the  ordinary  law  permits, 
and  that  when  men  are  brought  to  trial  they  will  be  brought  to 
trial  with  all  the  fairness  and  all  the  advantages  which  all  the 
ordinary  law  gives.  I  should  say  what  was  most  unjust  to  the 
gentlemen  sitting  on  that  (the  Treasury)  Bench,  if  I  said. aught 
else  than  that  I  believe  they  are  as  honestly  disposed  to  do 
right  in  this  matter  as  I  am,  and  as  I  have  ever  been.  I  implore 
them,  if  they  can,  to  shake  off  the  trammels  of  doubt  and  fear 
with  regard  to  this  question,  and  to  say  something  that  may  be 
soothing — something  that  may  give  hope  to  Ireland.  I  voted 
the  other  night  with  the  hon.  member  for  Tralee  (The 
O'Donoghue).  We  were  a  very  small  minority.  Yes,  I  have 
often  been  in  small  minorities.  The  hon.  gentleman  would 
have  been  content  with  a  word  of  kindness  and  sympathy,  not 
for  conspiracy,  but  for  the  people  of  Ireland.  That  word  was 
not  inserted  in  the  Queen's  Speech,  and  to-night  the  Home 
Secretary  has  made  a  speech  urging  the  House  to  the  course 
which,  I  presume,  is  about  to  be  pursued ;  but  he  did  not  in 
that  speech  utter  a  single  question  which  lies  behind,  and  is 
greater  and  deeper  than  that  which  he  discussed.  I  hope,  Sir, 
that  if  Ministers  feel  themselves  bound  to  take  this  course  of 
suspending  the  common  right  of  personal  freedom  to  a  whole 
nation,  at  least  they  will  not  allow  this  debate  to  close  without 
giving  to  us  and  to  that  nation  some  hope  that  before  long 
measures  will  be  considered  and  will  be  introduced  which  will 


1 1 2  Modern  Politicat  Orations. 

tend  to  create  the  same  loyalty  in  Ireland  that  exists  in  Great 
Britain.  If  every  man  outside  the  walls  of  this  House  who 
has  the  interest  of  the  whole  Empire  at  heart  were  to  speak 
here,  what  would  he  say  to  this  House  ?  Let  not  one  day 
elapse,  let  not  another  Session  pass,  until  you  have  done  some- 
thing to  wipe  off  this  blot— for  blot  it  is — upon  the  reign  of  the 
Queen,  and  scandal  it  is  to  the  civilisation,  and  to  the  justice 
of  the  people  of  this  country. 


THE    RIGHT    HON.    ROBERT    LOWE1 
ON    PARLIAMENTARY   REFORM. 

House  of  Commons,  April  26th,  1866. 

[The  Reform  Bill  of  1866,  introduced  by  Mr  Gladstone  on  March  1 2th, 
had  for  its  object  the  reduction  of  the  County  Franchise  from  £50  to  ,£14, 
and  of  the  Borough  Franchise.from  ^IO  to  ,£7.  The  popular  interest  in 
this  measure  was  unbounded  ;  not  since  the  passing  of  Lord  Russell's  Reform 
Bill  in  1832  had  any  Parliamentary  measure  excited  so  much  curiosity 
or  alarm.] 

Sir, — My  hon.  friend  the  member  for  Westminster  (Mr  John 
Stuart  Mill)  has  come  out  in  a  new  character.  I  do  not  speak 
of  the  excellent  speech  which  he  has  made,  because,  having 
known  him  for  many  years,  I  was  quite  sure  that,  when  he  took 
the  trouble  to  give  us  his  best  thoughts,  instead  of  dealing  in 
impromptus,  those  great  abilities  which  are  acknowledged  to  be 
his  would  be  apparent.  But  my  hon.  friend  has  taken  a  new 
stand.  He  has  taken  many  positions  with  regard  to  this  sub- 
ject, as  those  who  are  acquainted  with  his  works  well  know ; 
but  he  has  now  come  forward  in  the  capacity  of  the  advocate 
of  my  second  principle,  the  doctrine  of  class  representation. 
He  demands  the  franchise  for  the  working  classes ;  because,  he 
says,  they  are  not  sufficiently  represented  now,  although  they 
have  a  fourth  of  the  votes  in  boroughs.  He  offers  no  argument 
in  support  of  his  assertion ;  I  therefore  pass  it  by,  as  I  wish  to 
deal  with  arguments,  and  not  assertions.      My  hon.  friend  does 

1  Afterwards  Viscount  Sherbrooke. 
II 


1 1 4  Modern  Political  Orations. 

say,  however,  that  the  working  classes  have  not  so  much  influ- 
ence as  they  might  be  supposed  to  have,  because  they  are  so 
distributed  that  they  are  usually  outvoted,  and  thus  they  are  in 
a  position  little  better  than  if  they  had  no  votes  at  all.  He 
regrets,  on  their  behalf,  that  some  law  is  not  in  force  for  giving 
to  minorities  representation.  I  believe  that  is  a  fair  statement 
of  my  hon.  friend's  argument.  {Mr  Mill  was  utuierstood  to 
assent.) 

Now,  I  think  my  hon.  friend  ought,  in  passing,  to  have 
adverted  to  the  argument  which  I  have  so  frequently  insisted 
upon  in  this  House — namely,  that  if  the  working  classes  have 
only  128,000  votes  in  the  present  constituencies,  it  is  very  much 
their  own  fault,  because  many  more  of  them  have  the  means,  if 
they  choose  to  live  in  _^io  houses.  The  law,  therefore,  is  not 
to  blame  in  this  respect.  He  might  have  adverted  to  a  case 
which  I  may  mention  as  the  type  of  many  others.  The  South- 
wick  glass  manufactory,  at  Sunderland,  is  a  large  establishment 
where  many  workmen  are  employed,  earning  from  ^4  to  ^5  a 
week.  It  is  complained  that  none  of  these  persons  have  the  fran- 
chise. But  whose  fault  is  that  ?  These  workmen  are  earning, 
some  ^200  and  some  ^250  a  year,  and  yet  they  live  in  houses 
under  ^10  a  year  in  value.  Is  it  the  fault  of  the  law?  Of 
course,  I  must  not  say  whose  fault  it  is.  Every  gentleman  is 
free  to  say  anything  that  is  complimentary  of  the  working 
classes  in  general,  and  his  own  constituency  in  particular  ;  but 
any  gentleman  who  says  anything  in  the  slightest  degree  not 
pleasing  to  them  is  thought  to  have  grossly  misconducted  him- 
self. But  now,  having  adopted  the  theory  of  classes,  we 
cannot,  as  my  hon.  friend  was  inclined  to  do,  take  it  up  in 
order  to  make  an  argument  in  favour  of  the  working  classes, 
and  lay  it  down  when  it  makes  against  them.  His  logical 
mind  will  tell  him  that  he  must  follow  the  principle  out  to  its 
legitimate  conclusions,  and  so  he  is  bound  to  show  us  that  the 
extension  of  the  franchise  which  he  asks  for  the  working 
classes,  though  a  wide  extension,  can  be  given  without 
injury  to  the  other  classes.     He  must  not  take  the  theory  up 


Robert  Lowe  oil  Parliamentary  Reform.        i  j 


3 


for  the  working  classes  alone,  but  for  all  classes.  Now,  he  has 
not  condescended  to  show  us  how  the  extension  which  he 
approves  would  influence  the  position  of  any  other  class;  for  I 
view  this  question  not  as  one  between  working  classes  and 
those  who  employ  them,  but  between  those  who  have  property 
and  those  who  have  not. 

Now,  Sir,  I  would  refer  my  hon.  friend  and  the  House 
to  the  Preface  of  the  third  edition  of  his  work  on  "  Political 
Economy."  It  was  published  in  1852,  so  that  my  hon.  friend 
has  had  time  to  change  his  mind  since,  and  he  is  entitled  to  do 
it.     This  is  what  he  said.     I  am  very  glad  that  I  didn't — 

"The  only  objection  to  which  any  great  importance  will  be  attached  in 
the  present  edition,  is  the  unprepared  state  of  mankind  in  general,  and  the 
labouring  classes  in  particular  ;  their  extreme  unfitness  at  present  tor  any 
order  of  things  which  would  make  any  considerable  demand  on  either  their 
intellect  or  their  virtue." 

That  was  in  1852  ;  but  we  have  the  opinion  of  my  hon.  friend 
in  1S61.  In  his  work  on  "Representative  Government"  he 
says — 

"  I  regard  it  as  wholly  inadmissible  that  any  person  should  participate  in 
the  suffrage  without  being  able  to  read,  write,  and,  I  \\ill  add,  perform 
the  common  operations  of  arithmetic.  Universal  teaching  must  precede 
universal  enfranchisement.  No  one,  but  those  in  whom  an  a  prion 'theory 
has  silenced  common  sense,  will  maintain  that  power  over  others,  over  the 
whole  community,  should  be  given  to  people  who  have  not  acquired  the 
commonest  and  most  essential  requisites  for  taking  care  of  themselves." 

My  hon.  friend  himself  cheers  these  remarks.  I  hope  he  will 
take  some  opportunity  of  telling  us  what  was  the  process  of 
investigation  he  entered  upon  for  the  purpose  of  satisfying  him- 
self that  the  electors  in  -Q7  houses  will  be  found  prepared  for 
the  exercise  of  the  franchise.  I  hope  he  will  tell  us  what 
evidence  he  has  to  produce  of  their  intellect  and  their  virtue 
I  hope  he  will  satisfy  us,  if  he  has  satisfied  himself,  of  their 
being  able  to  read  and  write,  and  to  perform  all  the  common 
operations  of  arithmetic,  including — I  suppose,  though  he  did 
not  state  it  in  that  passage — the  Rule  of  Three.  I  hope  he  has 
satisfied  himself  that  universal  teaching  has  preceded  universal 
enfranchisement.     Of  course  the  word  "universal"  might  be 


1 16  Modern  Political  Orations. 

struck  out,  and  the  sense  would  remain  the  same — namely,  that 
instruction  must  precede  enfranchisement.  I  hope  he  will 
show  us  how  he  has  satisfied  himself  that  those  persons  whom 
he  proposes  to  enfranchise — to  whom  he  would  entrust  the 
interests  of  others — are  persons  who  have  acquired  the  com- 
monest and  most  essential  requisites  for  taking  care  of  them- 
selves. If  not,  how  can  he  reconcile  his  present  position  with 
any  principle,  but  that  d  priori  theory  of  which  he  speaks?  I 
do  not  say  my  hon.  friend  cannot  do  it.  He  can  do  most  things, 
and  perhaps  he  can  do  this ;  but  I  only  say,  as  things  stand,  he 
has  not  done  it,  and  that  his  own  writings  are  against  the  prin- 
ciple which  he  now  supports  by  his  speech. 

My  hon.  friend  half  took  up  the  challenge  which  I  threw  out 
when  I  asked  in  what  this  Parliament — which  has  only  just 
come  into  existence,  and  which  was  condemned  before  it  was 
born — has  been  found  wanting.  He  pointed  out  our  old  friend 
the  Cattle  Plague.  I  am  not  going  to  argue  that  question  over 
again  \  but  my  hon.  friend  said,  that  if  the  working  classes  had 
been  represented  here,  they  might  have  objected  to  persons 
being  twice  compensated  for  their  cattle.  Now,  Sir,  I  cannot 
persuade  my  hon.  friend,  but  I  think,  if  I  had  the  working  men 
here,  I  could  show  them  that  the  persons  to  whom  the  hon. 
member  for  Westminster  alludes  will  not  be  compensated 
twice.  Suppose  a  farmer  has  a  hundred  head  of  cattle,  which 
are  killed  to  prevent  the  spread  of  the  disease.  He  is  com- 
pensated at  less  than  their  value,  and  then  it  becomes  neces- 
sary for  agricultural  purposes  that  he  should  go  into  the 
market  and  buy  another  hundred  head  of  cattle.  The  loss 
which  he  sustains  is  not  only  the  difference  between  the  value 
of  his  former  cattle  and  the  compensation  which  he  got  for 
them,  but  also  the  amount  by  which  the  price  of  cattle  has 
been  enhanced  by  the  disease,  and  enhanced  in  some  degree 
by  the  slaughter.  I  cannot  persuade  my  hon.  friend,  because 
he  is  a  philosopher,  but  I  think  I  could  persuade  the  working 
men  whom  he  seeks  to  bring  among  us,  thai  so  far  from  being 
paid  twice  over,  the  farmer  in  that  case  has  never  been  paid 


Robert  Lowe  on  Parliamentary  Reform.        1 1 7 

once.  You  can  put  a  case  which  will  be  the  other  way.  If  a 
man  has  a  large  herd  of  cattle,  and  is  compensated  for  a  few  of 
them,  he  may  be  paid  over  again  by  the  enhanced  prices  of  the 
remainder.  You  can  put  the  case  both  ways,  but  what  I  com- 
plain of  is  the  narrowness  and  illiberality  of  saying  that  this  is 
a  matter  which  cannot  admit  of  two  aspects — that  those  who 
differ  from  my  lion,  friend  must  be  wrong,  and  that  if  it  were 
not  for  the  faulty  constitution  of  this  House,  we  should  see  and 
judge  things  in  the  same  manner  as  he  does.  [Mr  Mill. — I 
wish  to  correct  the  last  assertion  of  my  hon.  friend.  I  never 
imputed  to  hon.  gentlemen  in  this  House,  or  to  the  landed 
interest,  that  they  were  wilfully  wrong.]  I  may  remark  that  I 
suppose  no  one  in  this  House  would  have  any  objection  to 
working  men  coming  here  if  the  constituencies  wished  to  send 
them.  .They  can  do  so  now  if  they  like,  and  therefore  we  need 
not  take  up  time  in  arguing  the  point,  because  I  am  sure  that, 
whenever  the  constituencies  may  think  proper  to  send  working 
men  here,  we  shall  receive  those  representatives  properly,  and 
listen  to  them  with  respect.  But  my  hon.  friend  told  us  of  the 
subjects  which  the  working  classes  might  wish  to  debate  here. 
He  referred  to  "the  right  of  labour."  That  sounds  very  like 
the  right  to  labour,  of  which  we  heard  in  1848.  Are  we  to 
have  the  doctrines  of  Fourier  and  St  Simon  discussed  here  ? 
We  are  told  that  in  so  doing  we  shall  educate  the  working 
man.  I  protest  against  this.  We  are  here  to  legislate  for 
this  country,  and  if  we  look  after  the  Executive  Government 
pretty  sharply — if  we  take  care  of  our  finance,  and  if  we  watch 
the  Foreign  Office,  we  shall  be  doing  better  than  we  should  by 
converting  this  House  into  an  academy  or  gymnasium  for  the 
instruction  even  of  the  elite  of  the  working  classes. 

My  hon.  friend  said  that  if  the  working  classes  were 
here  they  would  establish  a  school  in  every  parish  in  a  few 
years.  Well,  that  is  a  subject  on  which  I  ought  to  know  some- 
thing ;  and  I  may  say  that  the  main  object  I  had  in  view,  in 
the  changes  which  I  proposed  on  the  part  of  the  Government 
in  the  education  system,  was  to  benefit  the  working  classes. 


i  iS  Modem  Political  Orations. 

Under  the  old  system  the   poor  children  were  not  properly 
taught.     The  upper  children,  the  children  of  richer  parents, 
were  examined,  and  the  money  was  paid  ;  but  the  lower  and 
poorer   children    were   neglected.      The   upper   children   had 
generally  had  some  education  at  home  ;  but  the  poorer  children 
had  received  no  education  at  home,  and  they  were  not  done 
justice  to  in  the  schools.     The  object  of  the  Revised  Code  was 
to  ensure  that  education  should  be  given  to  the  poor  just  as 
much  as  to  the  rich  ;  so  that  the  object  was  one  mainly — indeed 
entirely— for  the  working  classes.     But  in  that  object  I  never 
received  the  slightest  assistance  in  any  way  from  the  working 
classes.     The  opposition  to  it  was  very  much  from  the  mem- 
bers of  the  large  towns  in  which  the  working  classes  form  a 
considerable  portion  of  the  constituencies;   but  the  working 
classes  themselves  never  interfered  in  the  matter.     They  did 
not  care  about   it.      The   schoolmasters    interfered,    and   got 
members  of  Parliament  to  oppose  the  Code ;  but  the  working 
classes  never  entered  into  the  matter  at  all.     How,  therefore, 
my  hon.   friend  can  think  that  working    men   will  deal    with 
this  question,   in  which  they  have  never  shown  any  interest, 
and    which    is    very    intricate    and  difficult,    I    cannot    under- 
stand.    Again,  my  hon.  friend  ought  to  be  prepared  to  show 
how    he    means  to   resist   the   course   of  what    he    calls    false 
economy.     If  the    working    classes,    in    addition    to    being    a 
majority   in   the  boroughs,  get  a  redistribution  of  the  seats  in 
their  favour,  it  will  follow  that  their  influence  will  be  enormously 
increased.     They  will  then   urge  the  House  of  Commons  to 
pass  another  Franchise  Bill,  and  another  Redistribution  Bill  to 
follow  it.     Not  satisfied  with  these,  yet  another  Franchise  Bill 
and   another   redistribution   of  seats  will,   perhaps,    follow.      It 
will   be   a  ruinous  game  of  see  saw.      No  one  can  tell  where  it 
will  stop,  and   it   will   not  be  likely  to  stop  until  we  get  equal 
electoral  districts,  and  a  qualification  so  low  that  it  will  keep 
out  nobody. 

There   is     another  matter  with    which    my    hon.   friend    has 
not  dealt :  I  mean  the  pomt  of  combination  among  the  working 


Robert  Lowe  on  Parliamentary  Reform.        i  19 

classes.  To  many  persons  there  appears  great  danger  that  the 
machinery  which  at  present  exists  for  strikes  and  trades'  unions 
may  be  used  for  political  purposes.  And  that  this  use  of  such 
machinery  has  not  escaped  the  attention  of  thinking  men,  I 
will  show  you,  from  a  speech  made  by  the  hon.  member  for 
Birmingham  in  January  i860.     In  that  speech  he  said — 

"Working  men  have  associations;  ihey  can  get  up  formidable  strikes 
against  Capital — sometimes  for  things  that  are  just,  sometimes  for  things 
that  are  impossible.  They  have  associations,  trade  societies,  organisations  ; 
and  I  want  to  ask  them  why  it  is  that  all  these  various  organisations 
throughout  the  country  could  not  be  made  use  of  for  the  purpose  of  obtain- 
ing their  political  rights  ?  " 

Why  is  it  that  these  various  organisations  have  not  been 
so  made  use  of?  The  hon.  gentleman  asked  that  question 
in  i860,  and  I  admit  that  hitherto  he  has  received  no  answer. 
Why?  I  will  tell  you  why.  '1  he  working  classes,  to  use  his 
own  expression,  are  the  lever.  But  they  must  have  a  fulcrum 
before  they  can  act.  They  have  not  got  it.  Give  them  the 
majority  of  the  voters  in  a  number  of  boroughs,  and  it  is 
supplied  to  them.  It  is  not  by  passing  resolutions  and  making 
speeches  they  coerce  their  masters.  They  watch  their  oppor- 
tunity ;  they  wait  for  the  time  when  large  orders  are  in,  and 
they  refuse  to  work  :  that  is  the  fulcrum  they  work  on.  Give 
them  the  majority  of  voters — that  will  be  their  political  fulcrum  ; 
and  if  the  hon.  gentleman  repeats  his  advice,  no  doubt 
they  will  use  it  with  avidity.  I  want  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  House,  in  a  few  words,  to  the  condition  of  the  trades' 
unions,  because  we  are  all  anxious  to  discover,  if  we  can,  the 
future  of  that  Democracy,  which,  I  believe,  this  Bill  will  be  the 
first  means  of  establishing.  I  take  one  class,  the  operative 
stonemasons — a  very  influential  association,  numbering  80,000 
members,  and  having  a  large  capital.  Last  year,  after  a  strike 
of  nineteen  weeks,  this  body  of  masons  beat  the  masters.  Let 
me  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  a  letter  which  they  sent 
to  the  employers — 

"  We  present  you  with  the  wishes  of  our  trade  union,  requesting  a  reply 
on  or  before  Saturday  next  : — Mr  Thomas  and  all  non-society  plasterers  to 


120  Modern  Political  Orations. 

be  discharged  ;  all  non-society  carpenters  and  improvers  to  be  discharged  ; 
piecework  to  be  abolished,  etc.  On  behalf  of  the  United  .Building  Trades, 
John  Bray,  Chairman." 

Mark  what  that  is.  See  the  power  unions  have  of  drawing 
men  within  their  own  circle.  You  say,  if  they  become  political 
bodies,  men  who  want  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  politics  will 
have  nothing  to  do  with  them.  Can  they  help  themselves? 
They  will  be  overborne,  overawed;  they  are  like  men  con- 
tending with  a  maelstrom,  into  which,  and  struggle  as  they  may, 
eventually  they  will  be  sucked.  This  is  a  paragraph  which  I 
have  taken  from  an  Edinburgh  paper — 

"The  tailors'  strike  may  now  be  considered  at  an  end,  the  men  having 
agreed  to  accept  the  London  'log,'  with  payment  at  the  rate  of  5jd.  an 
hour,  as  offered  by  the  masters.  These  terms  the  men  seem  to  consider 
as  highly  satisfactory,  entailing,  as  they  will,  an  increase  of  from  15  to  25 
per  cent,  on  their  wages.  We  have  been  informed  that  the  men  have  made 
it  a  condition  with  the  masters  that  the  '  black  sheep,'  or  those  who  have 
continued  working  during  the  lock-out,  shall  not  obtain  employment  until 
they  become  members  of  the  Society,  besides  paying  a  fine  of  ten  shillings 
each." 

You  will  say  these  men  do  not  want  to  join  these  societies — 
I  daresay  they  do  not ;  but  what  choice  have  they  ?  The  truth 
is — and  of  this  I  want  to  convince  the  House — that  these  trades' 
unions  are  far  more  unions  against  the  best,  the  most  skilful, 
the  most  industrious,  and  most  capable  of  the  labourers  them- 
selves, than  they  are  against  their  masters.  Listen  to  another 
rule  which  is  taken  from  the  printed  book  of  the  Co-operative 
Society  of  Masons — 

11  Working  overtime,  tending  to  our  general  injury  by  keeping  members 
out  of  employment,  shall  be  abolished,  except  in  case  of  accident  or 
necessity." 

This  is  your  future  political  organisation.     Again — 

"  It  is  also  required  that  lodges  harassed  by  piecework  or  sub-contracting 
do  apply  at  a  reasonable  time  for  a  grant  to  abolish  it." 

That  is  to  say,  men  are  first  to  be  driven  into  these  unions 
by  pressure  such  as  I  have  explained  to  the  House,  and  then, 
once  they  are  got  within  the  limits,  whatever  their  necessities, 
whatever  the  pressure    of  their   families,    they  are  not   to   be 


Robert  Lowe  on  Parliamentary  Reform.        1 2 1 

allowed  to  eke  out  their  income  by  working  overtime.  To  do 
so  might  enable  a  man,  a  poor  man,  to  raise  himself  out  of 
that  sphere  of  life,  and  furnish  him  with  some  still  better 
occupation.  But  although  his  good  conduct  might  have  invited 
the  confidence,  and  attracted  the  notice  of  his  master,  he  is  not 
allowed  to  take  a  sub-contract,  to  make  a  little  money  in  that 
way.  The  object  of  all  these  proceedings  is  obvious.  It  is  to 
enclose  as  many  men  as  can  be  got  into  these  societies,  and 
then  to  apply  to  them  the  strictest  democratic  principle  ;  and 
that  is  to  make  war  against  all  superiority,  to  keep  down  skill, 
industry,  and  capacity,  and  make  them  the  slaves  of  clumsi- 
ness, idleness,  and  ignorance.  One  extract  more,  and  I  have 
done — 

"In  localities  where  that  most  obnoxious  and  destructive  system  gener- 
ally known  as  'chasing'  is  persisted  in,  lodges  should  use  every  effort  to 
put  it  down.  Not  to  take  less  time  than  that  taken  by  an  average  mason 
in  the  execution  of  the  first  portion  of  each  description  of  work,  is  the 
practice  that  should  be  adopted  among  us  as  much  as  possible  ;  and  where 
it  is  plainly  visible  that  any  member  or  other  individual  is  striving  to  over- 
work or  '  chase  '  his  fellow-workers,  thereby  acting  in  a  manner  calculated 
to  lead  to  the  discharge  of  members,  or  a  reduction  of  their  wages,  the 
party  so  acting  shall  be  summoned  before  the  lodge,  and  if  the  charge  be 
satisfactorily  proved,  a  fine  shall  be  inflicted  on  the  party  implicated." 

That  is  to  say,  when  a  poor  workman,  naturally  quicker  and 
more  skilful  than  those  about  him,  and  with  a  wish  to  distinguish 
himself,  shows  his  capacity,  so  as  to  oblige  his  fellow-workmen 
to  exert  themselves  more  than  goes  to  what  they  please  to  call 
the  time  taken  by  an  average  mason  in  the  execution  of  his 
work,  he  is  to  be  fined  and  put  down.  Add  to  this — what 
does  not  appear  in  any  of  the  rules  and  regulations,  but  what 
we  know  well  —  the  system  of  terrorism  that  exists  behind 
these  trades'  unions,  and  makes  the  lives  of  the  "knob-sticks" 
and  "  black  sheep "  miserable  till  they  are  driven  into  them. 
And  then  look  at  this  tremendous  machinery  ;  if  you  only  arm 
it  with  the  one  thing  it  wants — the  Parliamentary  vote  ! 

It  remains  for  us  to  consider  the  result  of  the  step  that  you 
are  invited  to  take.  I  assume  that  this  is  really  a  very  large  and 
sweeping   change   in   the   democratic   direction,  giving,   as    I 


I  22 


Modern  Political  Orations. 


believe,  the  majority  of  votes  in  boroughs  to  the  working 
classes.  On  that  point  we  are  compelled  to  differ,  because  the 
Government  will  not  give  us  the  materials  necessary  for  making 
an  accurate  calculation.  This  change  is  to  be  followed  by  a 
further  and  very  large  change  in  the  redistribution  of  seats. 
It  does  not  depend  upon  any  Government,  upon  any  Minister, 
perhaps  upon  any  House  of  Commons,  to  say  where  those 
changes  will  stop.  One  hon.  member  speaks  of  this  as  a 
change  that  will  last  fifty  years.  He  has  put  the  matter  as 
entirely  out  of  his  power  as  a  man  who,  rolling  a  stone  down 
the  side  of  a  mountain,  fixes  beforehand  in  his  own  mind  the 
time  it  will  take  to  reach  the  bottom.  We  have  had  this 
matter  put  before  us  from  one  very  peculiar  and  invidious 
point  of  view.  It  seems  to  have  been  thought  that  the  manner 
to  discuss  the  probable  results  of  a  urt"cat  democratic  change  in 
this  country  was,  on  the  one  side,  to  praise  the  working  man, 
especially  those  among  our  own  constituents,  and  on  the  other, 
to  remain  silent,  because  nothing  except  praise,  it  is  presumed, 
would  be  borne.  I  think  that  is  not  the  way  to  approach  this 
question.  There  is  considerable  risk  that  in  this  way  the  basis 
of  our  institutions  may  be  complimented  away.  We  are  rich 
in  experience  on  this  subject.  We  have  the  experience  of  our 
own  state  and  condition,  which,  compared  with  that  of  other 
countries,  may  be  called  a  stationary  state  ;  we  have  the  experi- 
ence of  our  Colonies  all  over  the  world,  which  may  be  described 
as  in  a  transition  state ;  and  we  have  the  experience  of  those 
two  great  democracies,  France  and  America,  where  Democracy 
may  be  said  to  have  run  its  course,  and  arrived  at  something 
like  its  ultimate  results.  It  is  inexcusable  in  us,  if  we  do  not 
apply  our  minds  to  the  consideration  of  this  subject,  and  draw 
from  this  rich  field  of  observation  conclusions  more  trust- 
worthy and  more  reliable  than  those  to  be  gained  from  our  own 
isolated  experience,  particularly  as  this  is  so  often  contradictory. 
The  hon.  gentleman  the  Under  Secretary  lor  the  Colonies 
(Mr  Cardwell)  began  his  speech  the  other  night  by  telling 
us,    that    if    the    working  men    had    a  fault    in    the    world,    it 


Robert  Lozve  on  Parliamentary  Reform.        123 

was  their  too  great  reverence  for  authority,  and  then  he  went 
on  to  tell  us,  that  if  we  did  not  accede  to  their  present  moder- 
ate requests,  it  would  be  a  question,  not  of  how    much  we 
should  give,  but  of  how  much  they  would  take.      That  was 
the   sum    of  the    lion,  gentleman's   remarks ;  he  told  us  that 
the  burden  of  proof  would  be  effectively  shifted,  and  he  said 
what  we  all  understood  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  (Mr 
Gladstone)  to  say  before  he  wrote  his  preface,  and  made  his  two 
speeches  to  explain   away  his    meaning.       The  working    men 
entered   the    hon.    gentleman    the    Under-Secretary's   speech 
like  lambs,  and  they  left  it  as  lions  ;  and  so  his  estimate  of 
them  may  be  said  to  answer  itself.     The  question  of  peace  or 
war  has  been  a  good  deal  touched  upon  in  this  debate.     The 
Chancellor  of  the   Exchequer,  at    Liverpool,  was  very  much 
struck  with  the  magnificent  spectacle  put  forth  by  Democracy 
in  the  recent  war.     I  would  rather  he  had  commended  it  for 
something  it  had  done  in  peace.     I  never  doubted  that  De- 
mocracy was  a  terrible  warlike  power.     It  is  not  the  educated 
and  reflective  who  are  influenced  by  ideas,  but  the  half-edu- 
cated and  the  unreflective ;  and  if  you  show  to  the  ignorant  and 
poor  and  half-educated  wrong,  injustice,  and  wickedness,  any- 
where, their  generous  instincts  rise  within  them,  and  nothing  is 
easier  than  to  get  up  a  cry  for  the  redress  of  those  grievances. 
We  feel  the  injustice,  too ;   but  we   look  not  merely  at  the 
injustice  itself — we   look   before   and   after;   we   look  at  the 
collateral  circumstances,  at  what   must  happen  to  the  trade, 
revenue,  and  our  own  position  in  the  world,  and  we  look  also 
at  what  must  happen  to  those  very  poor  persons  themselves, 
before  we  commit  ourselves  to  a  decided  course.      Persons, 
also,  who  have  something  to  lose  are  less  anxious  to  lose  it  than 
those  who  have  little  at  stake  often,  even  though  these  last  may 
by  the  loss  be  reduced  to  absolute  poverty.      At  the  time  of 
the  Crimean  war,  we  actually  got  up  an  enthusiasm  on  behalf 
of  that  most  abominable  and  decrepit  despotism — the  Turkish 
Empire.     Nothing  would  have  been  more  popular  in  England 
than  a  war  on  behalf  of  Hungary  in   1849,  or  one  lately  on 


124  Modern  Political  Orations. 

behalf  of  Poland.  Wherever  cruelty  or  injustice  exists,  the 
feelings  of  the  humbler  class  of  Englishmen — to  their  honour 
be  it  said — revolt  against  it,  and,  not  possessing  the  quality  of 
circumspection,  their  impulse  is  to  go  straight  at  the  wrong  and 
redress  it,  without  regard  to  ulterior  consequences. 

Therefore,  to  suggest  that  in  making  the  institutions  of  the 
country  more  democratic  we  have  any  security  from  war,  that 
we  do  not  greatly  increase  the  risk  of  war,  seems  to  me  supremely 
ridiculous.  What  is  taking  place  in  the  Australian  Colonies? 
Victoria  and  New  South  Wales  are  both  governed  by  universal 
suffrage,  and  it  is  as  much  as  we  can  do  to  prevent  their  going 
to  war  with  each  other.  Look  at  America.  A  section  of  the 
American  Democracy  revolted  and  broke  up  the  Union,  the 
rest  fought  to  preserve  it ;  the  war  was  fought  out  to  the  bitter 
end,  and  now  that  the  war  is  concluded,  they  are  almost 
ready  to  go  to  war  again  to  prevent  the  doing  of  that  which 
they  took  up  arms  to  accomplish.  Look  at  Free  Trade.  If 
we  have  a  precious  jewel  in  the  world,  it  is  our  Free  Trade 
Policy.  It  has  been  everything  to  us.  With  what  eyes  do 
Democracies  look  at  it  ?  Let  us  turn  to  History,  and  not  enter 
into  particular  cases  of  particular  working  men.  Take  the  facts. 
Canada  has  raised  her  duties  enormously,  and  justified  them 
upon  Protectionist  principles.  The  Prime  Minister  of  New 
South  Wales  at  this  moment  is  a  strong  Protectionist.  The 
Ministry  in  Victoria  were  Free  Traders,  but  by  the  will  of  the 
people  they  have  been  converted,  and  have  become  Pro 
tectionists.  So  vigorously  has  the  question  been  fought,  that 
destruction  is  threatened  to  the  second  branch  of  the  1  -egis- 
lature,  though  equal  in  power  to  the  other,  in  defiance  of  the 
laws  of  the  country,  and  all  to  carry  out  a  policy  of  Protection. 
Then  we  come  to  America.  America  out-protects  Protection — 
there  never  was  anything  like  the  zeal  for  Protection  in  America 
With  a  revenue  that  needs  recruiting,  by  every  means  in  their 
power  they  persist  in  sacrificing  the  most  valuable  resources; 
with  a  frontier  that  bids  defiance  to  any  effectual  attempts  to 
guard  it,  they  persist  in  maintaining  duties  that  provoke  to 


Robert  Lowe  on  Parliamentary  Reform.         125 

wholesale  smuggling  rather  than  reduce  them  by  a  single 
penny.  And,  as  if  anxious  at  once  to  illustrate  the  Free  Trade 
and  Peace  proclivities  of  Democracy,  they  terminate  the  Treaty 
with  Canada,  which  was  a  step  in  the  direction  of  Free  Trade, 
and  then  seek  to  enforce  by  violence  the  very  rights  which  the 
Treaty  they  have  put  an  end  to  secured.  I  will  add  one  word 
as  to  Communism.  The  hon.  member  for  Lambeth  has  cer- 
tainly furnished  us  with  a  very  good  argument  in  favour  of  the 
proposition  of  having  working  men  to  represent  themselves. 
He  has  drawn  such  a  picture  of  them  as  they  would  scarcely 
have  given  themselves.  What  does  he  say  ?  He  says,  in  the 
first  place,  that  they  are  entirely  unable  to  understand  that 
wages  depend  on  the  laws  of  supply  and  demand;  that,  he 
says,  is  entirely  out  of  their  conception.  Then  he  tells  us  that 
they  have  no  conception  of  any  difference  between  the 
remuneration  of  the  strong  and  the  weak ;  the  strong  are  to 
work  for  the  weak,  and  all  are  to  be  paid  alike.  Then,  as  far 
as  Government  is  concerned,  the  working  men — so  far  from 
having  a  horror  of  a  paternal  and  interfering  Government — 
want  us  to  prevent  their  going  to  public-houses,  and  this  in  the 
name  of  universal  Liberty,  Equality,  and  Fraternity.  Not  only 
so,  but  they  insist  that  the  money  of  their  fellow-taxpayers  ought 
to  be  spent  in  building  houses  for  them  to  live  in,  forsooth,  to 
appropriate  a  sufficient  proportion  of  their  own  incomes  to  pay 
the  amount  of  rent  required  to  accomplish  this  object  on  com- 
mercial principles. 

I  now  come  to  the  question  of  the  representatives  of  the 
working  classes.  It  is  an  old  observation  that  every  Democracy 
is  in  some  respects  similar  to  a  despotism.  As  courtiers  and 
flatterers  are  worse  than  despots  themselves,  so  those  who 
flatter  and  fawn  upon  the  people  are  generally  very  inferior  to 
the  people — the  objects  of  their  flattery  and  adulation.  We 
see  in  America,  where  the  people  have  undisputed  power,  that 
they  do  not  send  honest,  hard-working  men  to  represent  them 
in  the  Congress,  but  traffickers  in  office,  bankrupts,  men  who 
have  lost  their  character,  and  been  driven  from  every  respectable 


126  Modern  Political  Orations. 

way  of  life,  and  who  take  up  politics  as  a  last  resource.     There 
is    one   subject    of  immense   importance   to   a  constitutional 
House — viz.,   the   expenses   of  elections.     The    member   for 
Westminster  (Mr  J.  S.  Mill)  thinks  this  Bill  will  abridge  the 
influence   of  wealth.     Will   it   do   so?     Let   us   see.     These 
expenses  are  of  two  kinds— legitimate  and  illegitimate.     The 
Bill  now  before  the  House  will  enormously  increase  the  electoral 
districts,  and  in  many  it  will  double,  and  in  some  treble,  the 
legitimate  expense  of  elections.     I  am  speaking  among  people 
who  are  thoroughly  acquainted  with  this  subject,  and  they  know 
too  well  that  the  expenses  of  elections  depend  as  much  on  the 
illegitimate  as  on  the  legitimate  agencies  employed.     Can  it  be 
argued,  then,  that  by  admitting  occupiers  of  houses  between 
^10  and  j£j  you  will  diminish  the  illegitimate  expenses  of 
elections?     Yes,  it  can,  for  it  has  been  thus  argued  by  the 
right  hon.  gentleman  the  President  of  the  Board  of  Trade  (Mr 
Milner  Gibson).     The  right  hon.  gentleman — and  I  am  happy 
to  have  his  authority— says  (mind,  I  do  not)  that  the  people 
in  a   great   many   of  the   boroughs   are   very   corrupt.      [Mr 
M.  Gikson. — I  said,  "Some  voters."]     Well,  some  voters  in 
some  boroughs.     I  wish  to  be  cautious.     Some  of  these  voters 
have  political  opinions,  but  their  minds  are  so  sluggish  that 
they  cannot  be  influenced  without  a  certain  lent  tormentum,  or 
reminder  in  the  shape  of  a  five-pound  note  ;  while  others,  who 
have  no  political  opinions,  are  slow  and  procrastinating,  being 
never  able  to  make  up  their  minds  until  about  three  o'clock  on 
the  day  of  the  poll,  when  by  some  inscrutable  influence  they 
are  urged  on  to  a  little  activity.     Others  are  judicial,  and  cannot 
decide  till  they  have  been  paid  on  both  sides.     It  is  said,  Here 
is  a  disease ;   cure  it,  dilute  its  poison  by  admitting  a  large 
number  to  the   franchise.      Well,   this  would  be  a  very  good 
argument  if  health  were  catching  as  well  as  disease.     If  I  had 
half-a-dozen  diseased  cattle,  and  I  turned  one  hundred  sound 
cattle  among  them,  I  might  infect  the  new  ones,  but  1  do  not 
think  that  I  should  do  much  good  to  the  sick  ones. 

And   now  let  me  say  that  I  have  never  been  answered  as  to 


Robert  Lowe  on  Parliamentary  Reform.        127 

the  effect  which  the  lowering  of  the  franchise  would  have  upon 
this  House,  and  I  suppose  that  I  never  shall  be.     One  great  mis- 
take is  made — it  is  almost  a  childish  oversight— and  that  is  to 
speak  of  this  House  as  if  it  were  merely  a  legislative  body.    The 
members  of  this  House  have  a  position,  a  consideration,  and  a 
weight  in  this  country  such  as  no  legislative  body  ever  had  in 
any  country  in  the  world.     This  is  not  because  of  any  extra- 
ordinary skill  in  legislation  ;    we  have  other  functions.     The 
House  is  the  administrator  of  the  public  funds,  but  besides 
that,  it  is  a  main  part  of  the  Executive  Government  of  the 
country.     It  can  unmake  the  Executive,  and  it  can  go  a  long 
way  to  make  it.     It  is,  therefore,  well  to  consider  that  you  are 
dealing  with   a   Legislature   entirely  different  from  either  the 
Assembly  of  France  or  the  Congress  of  America.     We  all  know 
that  while  our  legislation  has  been  more  vigorous  and  better 
since  the   Reform  Bill,  the  Executive  Government  has  shown 
weakness  and  languor.     If  you  exaggerate,  if  you  intensify  the 
causes  already  at  work,  you  will  find  it  necessary  to  do  what 
has  been   done  elsewhere— to  separate  the  functions  of  the 
Executive  Government  from  the  House  of  Commons  altogether, 
to  break  up  that  most  salutary  union  which  exists  between  them, 
and  to  have  a   Government  which   shall  not  depend  for  its 
existence  upon  a  majority  in  this  House. 

Now,  that  is  a  consideration  the  seriousness  of  which  it  is 
perfectly  impossible  to  exaggerate.  In  the  Colonies  they  have 
got  Democratic  Assemblies  And  what  is  the  result?  Why, 
responsible  Government  becomes  a  curse,  instead  of  a  blessing. 
In  Australia  there  is  no  greater  evil  to  the  stability  of  Society,  to 
industry,  to  property,  and  to  the  well-being  of  the  country,  than 
the  constant  change  which  is  taking  place  in  the  Government, 
and  the  uncertainty  that  it  creates,  and  the  pitting  of  rival 
factions  against  each  other.  The  same  thing,  I  think,  is  won- 
derfully exemplified  in  Victoria,  where  you  have  a  Government 
which  is  now  under  the  influence  of  universal  suffrage,  and 
which  is  at  war  at  once  with  the  judicial  authorities  and  the 
Upper    Chamber,    because    neither   will    yield   to   its   illegal 


128  Modern  Political  Orations. 

exactions.  The  Supreme  Court  decides  against  the  levy  of 
taxes  by  resolution  of  the  Assembly,  and  the  Government 
dissolves  Parliament  and  appeals  to  universal  suffrage  against 
the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court.  What  does  this  tend  to  ? 
It  tends  to  Anarchy,  and  from  that  Anarchy  these  Colonies  must 
be  relieved.  They  can,  however,  only  be  relieved  by  depriving 
them  of  that  boon  which  in  an  unfortunate  hour  they  received — 
that  of  responsible  Government  coupled  with  universal  suffrage 
— and  by  placing  their  Government  in  some  permanent  hands, 
so  that  the  Executive  shall  not  be  in  a  perpetual  state  of  change. 
Look  a  little  further,  and  see  what  happened  in  France,  where 
there  was  a  limited  constituency  in  the  time  of  Louis  Philippe, 
and  Parliamentary  Government  until  the  Revolution  of  1848. 
Then  came  the  Assembly  elected  by  universal  suffrage,  and  still 
with  a  responsible  Government.  But  that  responsible  Govern- 
ment became  weaker  every  day  until  the  coup  d'etat,  and  I 
doubt  if  there  are  many  gentlemen  here  who  could  tell  me  the 
name  of  the  nominal  Premier  under  whom  the  liberties  of 
France  were  overthrown.  The  great  men  who  founded  the 
Constitution  of  America  foresaw  this,  and  they  took  means  to 
obviate  the  difficulty,  They  knew  perfectly  well  of  what  the 
enormous  advantage  of  our  system  of  Government  consisted. 
They  knew  that  Democracy  required  checks,  and  they  sought 
to  check  it  by  various  means.  They,  in  fact,  checked  Demo- 
cracy with  Democracy,  and  elected  a  President.  They  added, 
too,  what  we  have  not  got — the  principle  of  federalism,  which 
resisted  the  downward  tendency  of  Democracy  by  a  lateral 
pressure.  To  use  a  familiar  illustration,  they  held  a  piece  of 
coal  up  by  a  pair  of  tongs.  That  has  been  the  course  adopted 
in  America.  And  now  let  us  see  what  has  come  of  it.  They 
have  fought  out  a  Civil  War,  and  gained  a  great  victory.  But 
we  must  remember  that  men's  opinions  were  divided.  One 
side  wanted  to  prevent  the  South  from  regaining  the  power  it 
possessed  before  the  Civil  War,  and  the  other  to  reconstruct 
the  Union  on  the  principle  of  State  rights.  In  this  country  the 
question  would  be  decided  by  a  vote  displacing  or  retaining 


Robert  Lowe  on  Parliamentary  Reform.      129 

the  Government;  and  those  who  were  displaced  would  carry 
into  the  wilderness  their  offences,  as  the  scapegoat  carried  off 
the  offences  of  the  people  of  Israel.  But  mark  what  happens 
in  America.  You  cannot  get  rid  of  the  President,  who  sits  for 
four  years  ;  nor  the  Congress,  which  sits  for  two  years.  There- 
fore you  have  an  internecine  duel,  and  those  who  ought  to 
combine  and  coalesce  for  the  good  of  the  country  are  in  fac- 
tious opposition.  The  whole  frame  of  the  Constitution  is  thus 
stretched  until  it  cracks — to  try,  not  who  shall  hold  the  supreme 
power,  but  which  of  the  two  rival  institutions  shall  gain  the 
victory  over  the  other.  You  have  seen  Senators  expelled  in 
order  to  secure  a  majority  of  two-thirds,  and  things  have 
arrived  at  such  a  pitch  that  no  man  need  be  surprised  at  seeing 
a  second  Civil  War,  from  the  inability  of  the  Constitution  to 
solve  the  difficulty  in  which  the  first  Civil  War  had  placed  the 
country. 

Let  us  apply  this  to  our  own  country.  We  have  in  our  own 
Government  an  invaluable  institution,  and  let  us  not  rashly  or 
foolishly  put  it  in  peril.  I  do  not  know  whether  hon.  gentle- 
men have  read  the  report  of  the  debate  which  took  place  the 
other  day  in  the  French  Chamber  between  M.  Thiers  and 
M.  Rouher  on  the  subject  of  the  introduction  into  France  of 
a  responsible  Government.  Though  my  sympathies,  as  an 
Englishman,  are  with  M.  Thiers,  I  confess  that  in  my  opinion 
the  argument  of  M.  Rouher  was  unanswerable,  for  the  ques- 
tion was  whether  responsible  Government  could  co-exist  with 
universal  suffrage  ?  If  you  were  to  have  responsible  Govern- 
ment back,  said  M.  Rouher,  you  must  also  have  back  the  pays 
legal,  the  old  constituencies  containing  200,000  voters;  for, 
without  that,  he  argued,  M.  Thiers  was  asking  for  a  thing 
without  being  prepared  to  realise  the  only  conditions  under 
which  it  could  exist.  Now,  Sir,  Democracy  has  yet  another 
tendency,  which  it  is  worth  while  to  study  at  the  present 
moment.  It  is  singularly  prone  to  the  concentration  of  power. 
Under  it  individual  men  are  small,  and  the  Government  is 
great.     That  must   be  the  character  of  a  Government  which 

I 


130  Modern  Political  Orations. 

represents  the  majority,  and  which  absolutely  tramples  down 
and  equalizes  everything  except  itself.  And  Democracy  has 
another  strong  peculiarity.  It  looks  with  the  utmost  hostility 
on  all  institutions  not  of  immediate  popular  origin  which 
intervene  between  the  people  and  the  Sovereign  power  which 
the  people  have  set  up.  To  use  the  words  of  the  right  hon. 
gentleman  the  Chancellor  of  the  Duchy  of  Lancaster,  it  likes 
to  have  everything  as  representative  as  possible,  but  that 
which  is  not  representative  it  likes  to  have  swept  away.  Now, 
look  what  is  done  in  France.  Democracy  has  left  nothing  in 
that  country  between  the  people  and  the  Emperor  except  a 
bureaucracy,  which  the  Emperor  himself  has  created.  In 
America  it  has  done  almost  the  same  thing.  You  have  there 
nothing  to  break  the  shock  between  the  two  great  powers  of 
the  State.  The  wise  men  who  framed  the  Constitution  tried 
to  provide  a  remedy  by  dividing  functions  as  much  as  possible. 
They  assigned  one  function  to  the  President,  another  to  the 
Senate,  a  third  to  the  Congress,  and  a  fourth  to  the  different 
States.  But  all  their  efforts  have  been  in  vain,  and  you  see 
how  two  hostile  camps  have  arisen,  and  the  terrible  duel  which 
is  now  taking  place  between  them. 

Now,  apply  that  to  England,  which,  above  all  countries  in 
the  world,  is  the  country  of  intermediate  institutions.  There 
are  between  the  people  and  the  throne  a  vast  number  of  institu- 
tions which  our  ancestors  have  created.  Their  principle  in 
creating  them  seems  to  have  been  this — that  they  looked  a 
great  deal  to  Liberty,  and  very  little  to  Equality.  If  there  were 
something  to  be  done,  they  sought  for  some  existing  institution 
which  was  able  to  do  it.  If  some  change  were  required,  they 
altered  things  as  little  as  they  could,  and  were  content  to  go  on 
in  that  manner.  This  is  a  country  of  privileges  above  all 
other  countries ;  but  the  privileges  have  been  given,  not  as  in 
other  countries — as  in  France  before  the  Revolution,  for 
instance —for  the  benefit  of  the  privileged  classes,  but  because 
Our  ancestors,  in  all  moderation,  believed  this  to  lie  the  best 
way  to  ensure  order,  and  good  government,  and  stability.     It 


Robert  Lowe  f>n  Parliamentary  Reform.     131 

may  be  difficult  to  prove  upon  theory  how  all  this  should  he, 
because  ancient  Governments,  as  Burke  finely  remarks,  are 
seldom  based  on  abstract  principles,  but  rather  are  the  materials 
from  which  abstract  principles  are  drawn.  I  think  we  should 
act  more  wisely  and  more  worthily  to  the  country  if  we  were 
to  ascertain  what  lessons  of  wisdom  may  be  drawn  from  the 
signal  success  of  our  own  Government,  instead  of  trying  to 
borrow  from  the  people  of  America  notions  which  lead  to 
such  results  as  I  have  been  endeavouring  to  depict.  But,  Sir 
have  we  succeeded  ?  I  will  quote,  not  my  own  words,  but  ar 
unexceptional  witness.     Says  the  speaker  whom  I  quote — 

"  It  has  been  our  privilege  to  see  a  process  going  f  >rward  in  which  the 
throne  has  acquired  broader  and  deeper  foundations  in  the  affections  of 
the  country  ;  in  which  the  law  has  commended  itself  more  and  more  to 
the  respect  and  attachment  of  the  people  ;  in  which  the  various  sections  of 
the  community  have  come  into  close  communion  the  one  with  the  other  ; 
in  which  the  great  masses  of  our  labouring  fellow-countrymen  have  come 
to  be  better  supplied  than  they  were  in  the  time  of  their  immediate  fore- 
fathers ;  and  in  which,  upon  the  whole,  a  man  desirous  of  the  welfare  of  his 
kind,  looking  out  on  the  broad  surtace  of  Society,  may  thank  his  (Jod,  and 
say,  '  Behold,  how  good  and  pleasant  a  thing  it  is  for  brethren  to  dwell 
together  in  unity  1 '  " 

Well,  those  eloquent  words  were  the  words  of  the  Chancellor 
of  the  Exchequer,  and  they  were  spoken  on  the  14th  of  Sep- 
tember last,  just  two  months  before  he  began  the  concoction  of 
the  Bill  which  has  been  so  very  successful  in  illustrating  the 
manner  in  which  brethren  dwell  together  in  unity. 

Now,  let  us  suppose  Democracy  to  be  established  in  a 
greater  or  less  degree  in  this  country.  With  what  eyes 
would  it  look  upon  the  institutions  which  I  have  alluded  to  ? 
What  would  be  the  relation  of  this  House  with  the  House  of 
Peers?  I  will  call  a  witness.  Eight  years  ago  the  hon. 
member  for  Birmingham  (Mr  John  Bright)  inverted  his  present 
process.  He  is  now  anxious  to  secure  means;  he  was  then 
proclaiming  ends.     He  then  said — 

"  See  what  I  will  do  for  you,  if  you  will  only  give  me  Reform." 

But  now  he  says — 

"Give  me  Kefonn,  and  be  assured  that  I  will  do  nothing." 


132  Modem  Political  Orations. 

But  the  Bill  does  not  say  that.  The  words  he  uttered  eight 
years  ago  remain.  They  have  never  been  retracted,  and 
I  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  hon.  gentleman 
wishes  to  retract,  or  is  ashamed  of  any  one  of  them.  The 
hon.  member  said  on  one  occasion — I  am  speaking  from 
memory ;  but,  though  I  am  not  sure  about  the  words,  I 
am  about  the  meaning  which  the  hon.  member  intended  to 
convey — that,  as  far  as  the  House  of  Peers  was  concerned,  he 
did  not  believe  that  even  the  Peers  themselves  could  suppose 
that  they  were  a  permanent  institution  in  this  country.  What 
do  you  suppose  would  become  of  a  House  of  Peers  in 
America?  What  has  become  of  the  House  of  Peers  in 
France  ?  The  name  alone  remains ;  but  where  is  the  power 
of  that  brilliant  aristocracy  which  surrounded  the  throne  of  the 
Louises,  and  gave  a  glitter  even  to  their  vices?  Then,  what 
shall  we  say  of  the  Church  ?  I  am  speaking  of  it  merely  from 
a  secular  point  of  view,  as  a  large  and  wealthy  institution,  not 
exactly  of  popular  origin,  nor  looked  upon  with  particular  affec- 
tion by  persons  who  stand  well  with  the  masses.  I  call  a 
witness  again.  What  does  the  hon.  gentleman  the  member 
for  Birmingham  say?     He  speaks  of 

"That  portion  of  the  public  estate  which  is  for  a  time  permitted  to  re- 
main in  the  hands  of  the  Church  of  England." 

What  would  be  the  position  of  the  judges?  Looking  at  the 
differences  in  this  respect  between  the  two  countries,  it  will  be 
seen  that  we  have  fenced  round  our  judges  with  every  safe- 
guard, and  given  them  more  and  more  power,  until  we  have, 
made  them  practically  an  irresponsible. class  in  the  country. 
We  have  been  content  to  witness  the  melancholy  sight  of  a 
person  actually  blind,  and  we  have  still  a  man  of  ninety  years, 
sitting  upon  the  judicial  bench.  We  submit  to  this,  not  be- 
cause we  think  it  right  in  itself,  but  because  we  think  it  better 
to  err  to  a  small  extent  than  to  give  rise  to  the  slightest 
suspicion  that  a  judge  has  been  influenced  in  the  least  way  by 
this    House.      Now,    what  state  of  things  exists   in   America? 


Robert  Lowe  on  Parliamentary  Reform.      133 

In  the  great  State  of  New  York  the  judges  arc  appointed  for 
six  years  only,  and  further  West  the  term  decreases,  until  in 
Mississippi  two  years  is  the  maximum.  And  why?  In  order 
that  they  may  be  able  to  administer  the  law,  not  in  accordance 
with  the  law,  but  in  accordance  with  the  popular  sentiment. 
That  we  should  continue  to  have  judges  I  do  not  doubt,  but 
do  you  think  they  would  occupy  such  a  position  as  they 
occupy  now,  and  be  so  utterly  independent  of  popular 
power  ? 

And  now,  let  us  come  to  ourselves.  Our  position,  as  I  have 
remarked  already,  is  much  more  honourable  than  that  of  the 
members  of  any  other  Legislative  Assembly  in  the  world.  Do 
you  think  Democracy  would  look  with  a  favourable  eye  upon 
that?  Would  it  not  judge  by  analogy  that  such  a  state  of 
things  ought,  in  some  degree,  to  be  altered,  and  that  we 
should  be  made  to  approach  nearer  to  the  level  of  our 
constituents  ?  Now,  we  have  a  privileged  class  of  electors  who 
hold  houses  above  ^10.  That  class  is  a  humble  one,  but  it 
has  discharged  its  duty  up  to  the  present  time  in  a  manner 
which  almost  defies  criticism.  But  now,  without  any  reason, 
but  merely  on  account  of  an  abstract  principle  of  right,  we 
have  an  attempt  made  to  sweep  that  class  away  and  swamp  it 
in  the  class  below  it.  Without  enlarging  upon  this  topic, 
I  must  say  it  is  manifest  to  me,  that  if  the  House  of  Commons 
is  democratised,  it  will  not  rest  under  such  modified  circum- 
stances until  it  has  swept  away  those  institutions  which  at 
present  stand  between  the  people  and  the  throne,  and  has 
supplied  the  place  of  them,  as  far  as  it  can,  by  institutions 
deriving  their  origin  direct  from  the  people;  being,  as  the 
Chancellor  of  the  Duchy  of  Lancaster  said,  as  representative  as 
possible,  and  not  having  the  quasi  independence  which  the 
present  privileged  institutions  and  corporations  possess.  You 
will  then  have  face  to  face,  with  no  longer  anything  to  break 
the  shock  between  them,  the  monarch  of  the  time  and  a  great 
Democratic  Assembly.  Now,  History  has  taught  us  little,  if 
we  are  to  suppose  that  these   two  powers  would  go  on  bar- 


134  Modern  Political  Orations. 

moniously,  and  that  things  would  continue  to  work  as  they 
do  now.     The  event  no  one  can  predict.     We  saw  what  a  duel 
there   was    in    France  in   185 1,  when  the  President  and  the 
Assembly  were  each  grasping  at  the  sword,  and  endeavouring 
to    exterminate    the    other.       The    Emperor    conquered,    and 
Csesarianism    followed.      Had    the    Emperor    failed,    France 
would  have  had  the  very  worst  form  of  Government— namely, 
a  Convention,  a  deliberative  Assembly,  attempting  through  its 
Committees  to  exercise  Executive  power,  and  endeavouring  to 
do  that  which  ought  to  be  done  through  responsible  Ministers  ; 
and  such  a  Government  would  only  last   for  a  time,   to  be 
destroyed   by  some  Cromwell  or  Napoleon,  or  to  dissolve  by 
its  own  vices  and  weakness.     Look,   again,   on   the   state   of 
things  in  America,  where  the  President  wields  the  Executive 
power,  and  where  an  opposition  to  him  is  raised  in  Congress. 
And  then  see  how  Congress  works.     It  works  through  Com- 
mittees, and  every  officer  in  the  Government  has  a  corresponding 
Committee  in  Congress  to  thwart  and  to  overrule  him. 

But  I  need  not  follow  that  question  further.  Probably, 
many  gentlemen  may  even  think  that  I  have  endeavoured  to 
look  too  far  into  futurity.  At  all  events,  I  do  not  base 
my  case  on  mere  vague  conjecture;  I  base  it  upon  History 
and  experience.  The  right  hon.  gentleman  the  Chancellor 
of  the  Duchy  of  Lancaster  (Mr  Goschen)  has  told  us  that 
England  is  a  country  totally  different  from  America  or 
Australia,  and  that  no  argument  could  be  drawn  from  either  of 
the  two  latter  applicable  to  the  position  in  which  we  stand. 
Well,  Sir,  there  is  of  course,  no  doubt  that  England  is  a 
country  entirely  different  from  America  or  Australia,  but  the 
difference  is  in  their  favour  as  regards  the  working  of  a  Demo- 
cracy. They  possess  boundless  tracts  of  land.  In  America 
land  acts  as  a  sedative  to  political  passion;  in  England 
it  operates  as  an  irritant.  Here  land  is  held  up  by  democratic 
politicians  to  their  followers  as  a  thing  to  he  desired  and 
secured— as  the  spoilsj  in  fact,  of  political  warfare;  in  America 
it  is,  comparatively  speaking,  o(  no  value;  it  is  easily  obtained, 


Robert  Lowe  on  Parliamentary  Reform.      135 

and  much  inflammable  matter  is,  in  consequence,  removed, 
which  would,  under  other  circumstances,  prove  dangerous  to 
the  system.  Everybody  knows  that  if  America  were  altogether 
governed  by  the  great  towns,  the  result  would  be  most 
disastrous,  and  that  it  is  the  cultivators  of  the  land  who 
moderate  their  influence,  and  prevent  them  from  rushing  on 
to  their  destruction.  Upon  this  point  I  should  like  to  quote 
the  words  of  Lord  Macaulay,  one  of  the  most  able  of  the 
advocates  of  the  Reform  Bill  of  1832,  from  which  he  never 
went  back  a  hair's-breadth.  He,  in  replying  to  an  American 
gentleman  who  sent  him  a  "  Life  of  Jefferson,"  says,  speaking 
of  this  country — 

"  In  bad  years  there  is  plenty  of  grumbling  here,  and  sometimes  a  little 
rioting  ;  but  it  matters  little,  for  here  the  sufferers  are  not  the  rulers.  The 
supreme  power  is  in  the  hands  of  a  elass,  numerous  indeed,  but  select — of 
an  educated  class — of  a  class  which  is,  and  knows  itself  to  be,  deeply 
interested  in  the  security  of  property  and  the  maintenance  of  order." 

Then  he  writes  as  follows — 

"  It  is  quite  plain  that  your  Government  will  never  be  able  to  restrain 
a  distressed  and  discontented  majority,  for  with  you  the  majority  is  the 
Government,  and  has  the  rich,  who  are  always  a  minority,  absolutely  at 
its  mercy.  The  day  will  come  when,  in  the  State  of  New  York,  a 
multitude  of  people,  not  one  of  whom  has  had  more  than  half  a  breakfast, 
or  expects  to  have  more  than  half  a  dinner,  will  choose  a  Legislature." 

He  adds— 

"Is  it  possible  to  doubt  what  sort  of  Legislature  will  be  chosen?  On 
one  side  is  a  statesman  preaching  patience,  respect  for  vested  rights,  strict 
observance  of  public  faith  ;  on  the  other  is  a  demagogue  ranting  about  the 
tyranny  of  capitalists  and  usurers,  and  asks  why  anybody  should  be 
permitted  to  drink  champagne  and  ride  in  carriages,  while  thousands  of 
honest  folks  are  in  want  of  necessaries.  Which  of  the  two  candidates  is 
likely  to  be  preferred  by  the  working  man  who  hears  his  children  crying 
for  more  bread  ?  I  seriously  apprehend  that  you  will,  in  some  such  season 
of  adversity  as  I  have  described,  do  things  which  will  prevent  prosperity 
from  returning.  Either  some  Caesar  or  Napoleon  will  seize  the  reins  of 
Government  with  a  strong  hand,  or  your  Republic  will  be  fearfully  plundered 
and  laid  waste  by  barbaiians  in  the  twentieth  century,  as  the  Roman 
Empire  was  in  the  fifth  ;  with  this  difference,  that  the  Huns  and  Vandals 
who  ravaged  the  Roman  Empire  came  from  v  ithout,  and  that  your  Huns 
and  Vandals  will  have  been  engendered  within  your  own  country  and  by 
your  own  institutions." 


i  36  Modern  Political  Orations. 

Now,  observe  the  argument  of  Lord  Macaulay.    It  is  this — 

"You  have  a  Democracy  in  America;  but  you  have  there,  also, 
plenty  of  elbow-room,  and  abundant  means  of  subsistence  for  its  whole 
population  ;  but  when  this  state  of  things  comes  to  an  end,  then  the  in- 
stitutions of  the  country  will  be  tried,  and  a  crash  may  follow." 

In  England  we  have  not  a  Democracy,  but  we  have  a  state 
of  Society  in  which,  in  the  event  of  pressure,  distress  and  misery 
must  to  a  great  extent  prevail.  Now,  if  we  add  here  with  our 
hands  Democracy  to  population,  as  the  course  of  time  may  in 
America  add  population  to  Democracy,  we  shall  have  done  all 
in  our  power  to  bring  about  exactly  the  state  of  things  which 
Lord  Macaulay  describes,  and  we  may  expect  that  something 
like  the  same  consequences  will  be  the  result.  Sir,  it  appears 
to  me  we  have  more  and  more  reason  every  day  we  live  to 
regret  the  loss  of  Lord  Palmerston.  The  remaining  members 
of  his  Government  would  seem,  by  way  of  a  mortuary  con- 
tribution, to  have  buried  in  his  grave  all  their  prudence, 
statesmanship,  and  moderation.  He  was  scarcely  withdrawn 
from  the  scene  before  they  set  to  work  to  contravene  and 
contradict  his  policy.  That  policy,  acted  upon  by  a  states- 
man who  perfectly  understood  the  wants  of  the  English 
people,  had  been  crowned  with  unexampled  success  ;  and  they, 
I  suppose,  must  have  thought  that  the  best  way  to  secure  a 
continuance  of  that  success  was  to  aim  at  doing  that  which  he 
above  all  other  things  disapproved.  The  noble  Lord  at  the 
head  of  the  Government,  and  the  right  hon.  gentleman  the 
Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  have  performed  a  great  feat  ; 
they  have  taken  the  great  mass  of  their  supporters,  who  are,  I 
believe,  men  of  moderate  views  and  moderate  opinions,  and 
laid  them  at  the  feet  of  the  hon.  member  for  Birmingham. 
They  have  thus  brought  them  into  contact  with  men  and  with 
principles  from  which,  but  six  short  months  ago,  they  would 
have  recoiled. 

That  is  what  has  happened  to  a  portion  of  those  who  sit 
upon  these  benches.  As  to  the  rest  of  us,  we  are  left  like 
sheep    in    the    wilderness,  and  after   the   success  of  this  extra- 


Robert  Lowe  on  Parliamentary  Reform.      137 

ordinary  combination,  to  use  no  harsher  word,  we  who  remain 
precisely  what  we  have  been,  are  charged  with  inconsistency, 
while  the  bonds  of  political  allegiance  are  being  strained  until 
they  are  ready  to  crack  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  the  Liberal 
Party  together.  We  are  told  that  we  are  bound  by  every  tie 
which  ought  to  bind  mankind  to  act  in  accordance  with  the 
policy  of  Earl  Russell;  but  I,  for  one,  Sir,  dispute  the  justice 
of  that  proposition.  I  have  never  served  under  that  noble 
Lord.  I  have  served  under  two  Prime  Ministers  for  a  period,  I 
am  sorry  to  say,  of  little  less  than  ten  years.  The  one  was 
Lord  Aberdeen,  the  other  Lord  Palmerston.  Earl  Russell 
joined  the  Government  of  each  of  those  Ministers ;  both 
Governments  he  abandoned,  both  he  assisted  to  destroy. 
I  owe  the  noble  Lord  no  allegiance.  I  am  not  afraid  of  the 
people  of  this  country.  They  have  displayed  a  good  sense, 
which  is  remarkable,  indeed,  when  contrasted  with  the 
harangues  which  have  been  addressed  to  them.  But  if  I  am 
not  afraid  of  the  people,  neither  do  I  agree  with  the  right 
hon.  gentleman  the  member  for  Huntingdon,  in  fearing  those 
by  whom  they  are  led.  Demagogues  are  the  commonplace  of 
History.  They  are  to  be  found  wherever  popular  commotion 
has  prevailed,  and  they  all  bear  to  one  another  a  strong 
family  likeness.  Their  names  float  lightly  on  the  stream 
of  time ;  they  are  in  some  way  handed  down  to  us ;  but  then 
they  are  as  little  regarded  as  the  foam  which  rides  on  the  crest 
of  the  stormy  wave,  and  bespatters  the  rock  which  it  cannot 
shake.  Such  men,  Sir,  I  do  not  fear ;  but  I  have,  I  confess, 
some  misgivings  when  I  see  a  number  of  gentlemen  of  rank, 
of  character,  of  property,  and  intelligence  carried  away,  with- 
out being  convinced,  or  even  over-persuaded,  in  the  support  of 
a  policy  which  many  of  them  in  their  inmost  hearts  detest  and 
abhor.  Monarchies  exist  by  loyalty,  aristocracies  by  honour, 
popular  assemblies  by  political  virtue  and  patriotism  ;  and  it  is 
in  the  loss  of  these  things,  and  not  in  comets  and  eclipses, 
that  we  are  to  look  for  the  portents  that  herald  the  fall  of 
States.     I  have  said  that  I  am  utterly  unable  to  reason  with 


138  Modern  Political  Orations. 

the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  for  want  of  a  common 
principle  to  start  from ;  but  there  is  happily  one  common 
ground  left  to  us,  and  that  is  the  Second  Book  of  the  ALneid 
of  Virgil.  My  right  hon.  friend,  like  the  moth  which  has 
singed  its  wings  in  the  candle,  has  returned  again  to  the  poor 
old  Trojan  horse,  and  I  shall,  with  the  permission  of  the 
House,  give  them  one  more  excerpt  from  the  history  of  that 
noble  beast,  first  premising  that  I  shall  then  turn  him  out  to 
grass,  at  all  events  for  the  remainder  of  the  Session.  The 
passage  which  I  am  about  to  quote  is  one  which  is,  I  think, 
worthy  the  attention  of  the  House,  because  it  contains  a 
description  of  the  invading  army  of  which  we  have  heard  so 
much,  but  also  a  slight  sketch  of  its  General — 

"  Arduus  armatos  mediis  in  mamibus  adstans 
Fundit  equus,  victorque  Sinon  incendia  miscet 
Insultans  ;  portis  alii  bipatentibus  adsunt, 
Millia  quot  magnis,  nunquam  venere  Mycenis." 

In  other  words — 

"  The  fatal  horse  pours  forth  the  human  tide, 
Insulting  Sinon  flings  his  firebrands  wide, 
The  gates  are  burst;  the  ancient  rampart  falls, 
And  swarming  millions  climb  its  crumbling  walls." 

1  have  now,  Sir,  traced  as  well  as  I  can  what  I  believe  to  be 
the  natural  results  of  a  measure  which,  it  seems  to  my  poor 
imagination,  is  calculated,  if  it  should  pass  into  law,  to  destroy 
one  after  another  those  institutions  which  have  secured  for 
England  an  amount  of  happiness  and  prosperity  which  no 
country  has  ever  reached,  or  is  ever  likely  to  attain.  Surely 
the  heroic  work  of  so  many  centuries,  the  matchless  achieve- 
ments of  so  many  wise  heads  and  strong  hands,  deserve  a 
nobler  consummation  than  to  be  sacrificed  at  the  shrine  of 
revolutionary  passion,  or  the  maudlin  enthusiasm  of  humanity  ! 
But,  if  we  do  fall,  we  shall  fall  deservedly.  Uncoerced  by 
any  external  force,  not  borne  down  by  any  internal  calamity, 
but  in  the  full  plethora  of  our  wealth   and  the   surfeit  of  our 


Robert  Lowe  on  Parliamentary  Reform.      139 

too  exuberant  prosperity,  with  our  own  rash  and  inconsiderate 
hands,  we  are  about  to  pluck  down  on  our  own  heads  the 
venerable  temple  of  our  liberty  and  our  glory.  History  may 
tell  of  other  acts  as  signally  disastrous,  but  of  none  more 
wanton,  none  more  disgraceful. 


THE  RIGHT  HON.  GATHORNE  HARDY1 
ON  THE  IRISH  CHURCH. 
House  of  Commons,  March  31ST,  1868. 

[The  great  speech  of  Mr  John  Francis  Macguire  on  the  state  of  Ireland  on 
March  1 6th  led  to  a  motion  for  Irish  Disestablishment.  It  was  valiantly 
championed  by  Mr  Gladstone,  and,  in  spite  of  all  opposition,  was  carried 
in  the  course  of  the  following  Session.] 

We  are  called  on  at  a  special  and  peculiar  moment  to  go  into 
Committee  upon  a  question  of  the  greatest  possible  importance, 
and  one  that  cannot  be  settled  or  terminated— I  will  not  say  in 
this  Parliament,  nor  probably  in  the  next,  nor  for  many  years 
to  come,  in  my  opinion.  This  is  met  by  an  Amendment  on  the 
part  of  my  noble  friend  (Lord  Stanley,  afterwards  second  Earl 
of  Derby),  to  which  great  exception  has  been  taken.  I  will 
for  a  moment  take  notice  of  a  remark  that  has  been  made  on 
that  Amendment.  My  noble  friend  claimed  for  himself  free- 
dom of  acting  in  ftiture  Sessions  on  this  great  question,  without 
expressing  his  full  opinion  now;  but  at  the  same  time  he  said 
that  hewished  to  make  it  manifest  by  the  earlier  part  of  his  Resolu- 
tion that  the  present  course  of  the  Government  was  not  adopted 
from  mere  motives  of  obstruction,  from  no  conviction  that  there 
was  nothing  t<>  redress,  or  nothing  to  reform  in  the  Irish  Church, 
lor  an  admission  to  the  contrary  was  made  by  the  issuing  of  the 
Commission  now  sitting,  which    may   be  taken  as  an  acknow- 

1  Afterwards  Viscount  Cranbrook. 


Gaikoruc  Hardy  on  the  Irish  Church.     141 

ledgment  that  there  are  reforms  to  be  effected  and  Amendments 
to  be  made;  and  though  some  wish  to  go  far  beyond  what  I 
should  desire,  yet  many  who  think  as  I  do  acknowledge,  as  I 
have  already  done  before  this  time,  that  there  are  evils  within 
the  Church  ;    that,  as  has   been  said   by  many  of  her  Bishops, 
many  of  her  clergy,  many  of  her  attached  friends,  with  a  view 
to  strengthening  and  giving  more  effect  to  the  administration 
of  that  Church,  great  reforms,  great  alterations,  and,  if  I  may 
without  great  offence  to  gentlemen  opposite   use   the   word, 
great  "modifications"  are  needed.     It  would  have  been  idle 
and  absurd,  after  having  assented  to  a  Commission  upon  the 
Irish  Church,  if  the  Government  had  not  been  prepared  to  act 
upon  the  facts  which   may  be  proved  before  that  Commrssion, 
and  to  ameliorate  where  it  was  found  necessary.     I   do  not 
mean  to  say  that  the  present  Parliament  is  not  competent  to 
deal  with  the  subject,  because  it  is  obvious  that  so  long  as  this 
House  is  in  existence  it  must  have  all  the  powers  and  functions 
of  a  legislative  Assembly.     It  is  not  a  question  of  competence, 
but  of  time,   occasion,  and  opportunity.     The  facts  are  these  : 
At  a  comparatively  late  period  of  the  Session,  with  very  little 
progress  made  in  Supply ;    with  Boundary  Bills  involving  the 
interests  of  eighty-one  burghs  and  one  or  two  counties ;  and 
with  Reform  Bills — one  for  Scotland  and  one  for  Ireland—  in 
which  Amendments  of  great  importance  will  be  moved,  and 
which  must  take  a  long  time  — it  is  with  these  things  before  us, 
and  with  the  necessity  of  calling  for  an  early  dissolution  of  the 
House  and  an  appeal  to  the  country;  I  say,  with  these  things 
before  us,  are  we  not  right  in  saying  that  the  House  is  encum- 
bered with  business  ;  measures  of  great  importance  are  pressing 
upon  us,  and  therefore  this  is  not  the  time  to  come  forward 
with  an  abstract  Resolution.     The  first  Resolution  of  the  right 
hon.  gentleman  (Mr  Gladstone)   is  distinctly   and    solely   an 
abstract  Resolution,  which  cannot  pledge  the  new  Parliament 
that  will  have  to  assemble  in  a  few  months,  and  which  he  him- 
self admits  cannot  be  carried  into  effect  by  legislation  in  the 
course  of  the  present  Session. 


142  Modern  Political  Orations. 

I  say,  then,  that  this  question  is  one  which  has  been  sud- 
denly started  upon  the  country;  it  has  taken  the  people  by 
surprise.  If  it  had  not  been  started  so  suddenly,  if  it  had  not 
come  but  recently  on  the  minds  of  those  who  produced  it,  why 
— when  the  opportunity  was  afforded  by  the  motion  of  the  hon. 
member  for  Cork  (Mr  Maguire)  to  go  into  Committee  on  the 
state  of  Ireland,  of  submitting  this  question  of  the  Irish  Church 
to  the  consideration  of  the  House — why  did  not  the  right 
hon.  gentleman  produce  his  Resolutions  then,  and  ask 
the  House  to  consider  them  in  connection  with  the  state  of 
Ireland  ?  If  this  had  been  done  we  should  have  had  time  to 
consider  them,  and  they  would  certainly  have  been  discussed 
at  an  earlier  period  of  the  Session  than  they  have.  Is  it 
unreasonable  that  we  should  ask  for  time  to  consider  so 
important  a  matter  ?  Is  it  unreasonable  to  ask  for  time  in 
order  that  the  country  should  consider  the  question  upon 
which  it  must  eventually  decide?  Even  within  the  short  week 
we  have  had  the  rustle  of  petitions  increasingly  heard  from 
both  sides  of  the  House  day  by  day.  As  time  goes  on  I 
venture  to  say  that  more  and  more  petitions  will  be  brought 
here,  and  as  the  question  becomes  more  thoroughly  under- 
stood in  the  country  they  will  yet  increase.  Already,  too,  I 
notice  that  many  of  the  Nonconformist  body  have  petitioned 
against  the  Resolutions  of  the  right  hon.  gentleman,  so  that 
the  feeling  against  them  is  not  confined  to  Churchmen.  And, 
after  all,  the  right  hon.  gentleman  himself  stated  last  night  he 
did  not  anticipate  that  this  great  measure  which  he  had  in  hand 
could  be  carried  into  effect  under  much  less  than  thirty  years' 
time ;  and  yet  now,  forsooth,  it  is  a  question  of  hours  ;  it  is  not 
to  be  adjourned  for  a  few  months  in  order  that  it  may  be  placid 
in  all  its  integrity  before  the  country.  I  will  show  before  I  sit 
down  that  the  proposition  is  one  which  evades  the  chief  diffi- 
culties of  the  question,  and  only  deals  with  those  portions  of 
it  upon  which  unity  of  action  can  be  obtained  ;  whereas,  if 
the  right  hon.  gentleman  had  developed  his  whole  plan,  it 
would  be  certain   to   split   his   supporters  into  many  sections. 


Gat  home  Hardy  on  the  Irish  Church.     143 

The  Resolutions  aimed  a  blow  at  the  property  of  the  Irish 
Church,  which  I,  as  a  Churchman,  maintain  has,  during  the 
last  three  hundred  years  at  the  very  least,  and  indeed,  as  I 
believe,  for  a  much  longer  time,  passed  down  in  regular  succes- 
sion into  die  hands  by  which  it  is  now  held.  If  this  be  so, 
where  are  the 'Acts  of  Parliament  transferring  the  right  to  that 
property  at  any  time  before  or  during  those  three  hundred 
years?  In  what  way  has  that  transfer  been  made?  I  will  not, 
however,  enter  into  that  question,  because  if  I  did  so,  it  might 
possibly  call  up  opposition  on  the  other  side.  Hut  1  contend 
that  when  we  are  dealing  with  a  mass  of  property  of  so  much 
importance  and  of  so  long  prescription,  it  is  not  a  matter  for 
haste  ;  and  you  have  no  right  to  force  it  upon  the  country  until 
it  has  the  whole  case  before  it,  and  until  we  have  an  oppor- 
tunity of  consulting  the  constituencies  upon  it. 

I  would  ask  whether  this  question  of  the  Irish  Church  is  to 
be  disposed  of  hastily  and  without  discussion  ?  Is  this  Church, 
which  has  stood  for  so  long  a  time,  and  has  battled  for  centuries 
in  defence  of  the  truth,  to  be  at  once  given  up  without  con- 
sideration, and  are  all  the  arguments  of  the  many  great  men 
who  defended  her  in  former  days  to  be  ignored,  or  declared  to 
be  of  no  avail  ?  Am  I  to  be  afraid  to  say  that  the  Union  of 
Great  Britain  and  Ireland  was  a  compact — a  treaty  of  a  solemn 
and  a  binding  character.  Am  I  to  be  forbidden  to  say  that 
the  5th  Article  of  that  Union  was  so  important  that  it  was 
made  the  fundamental  basis  and  the  very  essence  of  that 
Union  ?  Let  those  who  doubt  this  look  at  the  Act  of  Union 
itself,  and  see  how  differently  other  conditions  are  treated 
which  were  not  regarded  as  fundamental  or  essential.  This 
Article  respecting  the  Church  was  made,  if  I  may  say  so,  the 
very  bait  for  the  Irish  Protestants  to  yield  to  that  Union.  It 
was  put  forward  on  all  occasions  as  an  inducement  to  them  to 
establish  their  Church  upon  what  was  represented  as  a  firmei 
footing,  by  uniting  it,  as  was  supposed,  indissolubly  to  the 
Church  of  England.  And  have  we  any  right  now,  because 
this  connection  may,  in  the  opinion  of  some,  be  a  burden  01 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

,  to  us,  to  throw  it  aside  and  say  :   "  We  will 

nion  of  the  Churches,  and  leave  the  Irish  Church 

self"?     Let  us  see  what  has  been  said  in 

s    by   eminent    politicians;    what,  for    instance, 

rd  Chief-Justice  of  England  as  to  the  effect 

ion    upon   the   united    Churches  of   England  and 

15th    oi   May     1805,    Lord    Ellenborough 

this   Article   of  the   Treaty  in  his  place  in 

I 

iole  of  the  Union  it  is  declared  that  the  continuance  and 

United  Church,  as  the  Established  Church  of  Eng- 

II  be  deemed  and  taken  to  be  an  essential  and  funda- 

!.      By  fundamental  is  meant,  with  reference  to  the 

1  an  integral  part  of  the  Compact  of  Union  formed 

is  as  is  absolutely  necessary  to   the  support  and 

e  fabric  and  superstructure  of  the  Union,  raised  and 

iach  as,  being  removed,  would  produce  the  ruin  and 

1  olitical  union  founded  upon  this  Article  as  its  immediate 

ht  linn,   gentleman  the  member  for  South  Lancashire 

d  from  this  point  by  saying  :  "  Oh,  but 

this  in  connection  with  other  things,"  that 

..  not  in  the  Act  of  Union,  but  in  State 

1  are  now  accessible  to  us.     But  there  was  no 

her  in  the  Act  of  Union  or  in  any  statement  on 

Mi    Pitt  that  anything  would  be  done  more  than 

by  that  Statute.     Nothing  can  be  produced  that  ever 

Mr  Pitt  to  show  that  anything  forming  part  of 

,  in  the   slightest   degree,   neglected  or  left 

im. 

■  I    opposite  says  that  there  were  other 

sorry  to  say  that  there  were,  and  that  the 

thai  day  may  be  said  to  have  been  corrupt 

of  the  term.     But  the  Parliament  of 

I   that   compact   and   joined    in   that 

•rrupt  a  Pai  tit?    |  Mr  Bright. — 

hon.  memberfor  Birmingham  says  it  was, 

hi    opinion,  the  Acts  of  that 


Gat  home  Hardy  on  the  Irish  Church.      145 

Parliament  are  not  to  be  attended  to,  or,  at  least,  are  not  to  be 
attended  to  in  the  same  way,  as  he  would  doubtless  conceive  they 
ought  to  be  if  they  were  the  Acts  of  some  more  perfect  legislative 
Assembly.  [Mr  Bright. — "I  did  not  say  so."]  I  am  perfectly 
aware  of  that.  But  just  now,  when  [  was  asking  whether  the 
Parliament  of  England,  which  also  joined  in  the  Act  of  Union, 
was  as  corrupt  as  the  Irish  Parliament,  the  hon.  gentleman 
interrupted  and  said  "  It  was."  And  that  either  has  some 
meaning,  or  it  has  not.  If  it  has  a  meaning,  does  it  mean  that 
the  Acts  of  that  Parliament  are  in  any  sense  invalidated  ?  If 
so,  we  shall  be  entering  upon  a  very  difficult  question.  And  if 
we  are  to  question  the  intentions  of  Parliament  and  its  freedom 
from  corruption,  and  so  to  judge  of  the  Acts  which  it  per- 
formed, I  am  afraid  that  some  of  our  creditors  will  not  be 
in  a  very  favourable  position  for  obtaining  payment  of  their 
debts. 

The  right  hon.  gentleman  the  member  for  South  Lancashire 
had  stated  that,  whatever  else  might  be  the  ultimate  effect  of 
his  Resolutions,  they  could  not  be  injurious  to  the  Protestant 
faith;  and  he  went  into  statistics  as  to  the  population  and  the 
proportions  of  different  creeds.  With  regard  to  these,  I  will 
only  say  that  anyone  who  heard  the  statistics  given  as  to  the 
different  creeds  and  different  professions  in  Ireland  must  have 
felt  that  the  sources  from  which  they  were  derived  were  not 
such  that  they  would  be  treated  as  a  particular  and  demonstra- 
tive statement  with  regard  to  the  population.  The  only 
statistics,  I  may  say,  that  were  thoroughly  gone  into  were  those 
in  1834  and  1861.  The  right  hon.  gentleman  said  that  when 
the  Penal  Laws  were  most  strictly  enforced,  the  Protestants 
had  increased ;  but  that  when  the  Penal  Laws  ceased  to  be 
enforced  and  liberty  was  freely  accorded,  the  Protestants  began 
to  diminish  in  proportion  to  the  Roman  Catholics ;  the  right 
hon.  gentleman  taking  these  things  as  cause  and  effect.  Now, 
if  there  were  a  period  during  which  there  was  a  more  general 
relaxation  of  the  Penal  Laws,  it  was  that  between  1834  and 
1 86 1,  and  yet  it  will  be  found   that    the  proportions  of  the 

K 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

had  then  increased  in  favour  of  the  Protestants.     1 
t  the  right  hon.  gentleman  says  that  such  increase  is 
,ted  tor  by  the  emigration  of  the  labouring  classes, 
,  to  be  all  of  the  Roman  Catholic  faith.     But 
ntleman  has  made  no  allowance  whatever  for 
ration  of  Protestants  from  Ireland.     I  believe 
Irish  member  who  will  fail  to  tell  you  that 
mts  there  were  a  very  large  number  of  Pro- 
arried  themselves  and  their  religion  to  another 
the  right  hon.  gentleman  says  that  the  Dis- 
nt  of  the  Protestant  Church  in  Ireland  will  not  be 
the  Protestant  faith.     I  should  be  ashamed  of  the 
I  profess,  if  I  thought  it  would  be  unable  to 
her  form  of  religion  with  or  without  the  aid  of 
but  am  I  on  that  account  to  say  that  I  think  it 
.  by  having  endowments?     If  so,  that  seems  to 
roent  which  goes  far  heyond  the  case  of  the  Irish 
not  know  why  in  one  country  it  is  to  be  con- 
advantageous    to    be   without   endowments,    and   in 
them.     And  if  religion  in  this  country  can 
obered,  as  the  right  hon.  gentleman  would 
.  think,  with  large  endowments,  why  do  you  object  to 
tant   friends   in    Ireland   retaining   that  which   they 
rvice  to  them,  and  that  to  which  they  believe 
lit? 

the  Voluntary  principle,  there  is  a  great  part  of 

h  the  Voluntary  principle  is  hardly  applicable — 

ih  are    but    thinly    scattered,    and 

almost  impossible,  without  parochial  organi- 

ould   obtain   for   themselves   the   means   of 

iry  that  in  these  parts  of  the 

■  »me  means  of  providing  them  with  the 

which  they  are  now  entitled  bylaw.     The 

m  holding  out  these  Resolutions  as  an 

.   to    I:  how  much   he  is  alienating — 

nig    those   who    are    members    of   the 


Gat  home  Hardy  on  the  Irish  Church.       147 

Church,  and  those  who,  though  not  actually  members  of  the 
Church,  feel  towards  it  a  friendly  interest.  We  are  here,  as  it 
were,  lookers-on  at  a  picture  which  is  passing  before  us  in  the 
distance ;  but  it  touches  the  hearts  and  the  homes  of  many. 
It  is  to  such  not  only  a  sentimental  grievance,  but  a  practical 
wrong.  While  they  feel  deeply  upon  the  matter,  is  it  for  us, 
in  our  apathetic  indifference,  to  give  up  the  dearest  interests  of 
those  with  whom  we  are  united  by  the  ties  of  religion,  of 
honour,  of  treaty,  and  of  compact — to  allow  such  considerations 
to  be  thrown  over  without  regard  to  their  feelings,  with  the 
view  of  reconciling  others  who  may,  after  all,  remain  hostile  to  us, 
whilst  we  alienate  our  old  friends  who  have  ever  been  faithful  to 
us  ?  Now,  Sir,  the  right  hon.  gentleman  said  he  did  not  think 
that  anyone  would  venture  to  use  the  argument  that  the  sub- 
version of  the  Irish  Church  would  tend  also  to  the  subversion 
of  property.  It  is,  however,  an  argument  that  has  been  used 
by  some  of  our  greatest  authorities,  and,  not  the  least,  by  that 
great  man,  Sir  Robert  Peel,  whose  memory  probably  the  right 
hon.  gentleman  opposite  respects.  It  was  an  argument  that 
Sir  Robert  Peel  did  not  disdain  to  use,  and  urge  with  great 
force,  on  more  than  one  occasion.  He  did  so  at  some  length ; 
but  I  will  merely  read  a  short  extract  from  a  speech  of  his  on 
the  Appropriation  Clause,  to  show  the  terms  in  which  he 
spoke  of  the  Church  property.     He  said — 

"  If  long  possession  and  the  prescription  of  three  centuries  were  not 
powerful  enough  to  protect  the  property  of  the  Church  from  spoliation, 
there  is  little  safety  for  any  description  of  private  property  ;  and  much  less 
for  that  property  which  is  in  the  hamls  of  lay  corporations." 

And  it  was  no  idle  fear,  for  there  are  symptoms  that  property 
in  the  hands  of  lay  corporations  is  in  danger,  and  language  has 
been  used  in  this  House  on  the  Irish  Land  Question  which 
seemed  to  verge  very  near  an  attack  on  the  Irish  property  of 
the  City  Companies.  Language  has  been  used  with  reference 
to  their  possession  of  land  in  Ireland  which  must  certainly  give 
them  the  hint  that  the  time  may  soon  come  when  they  will 
have  to  set  their  houses  in  order. 


i48  Modem  Political  Orations. 

•\nd  with  reference  to  another  great  corporation  possessing 
land  in   Ireland— the  Law  Life  Assurance  Society— language 
as  been  used  which  shows  there  is  a  design  in  some  persons 
to  carry  the  attack  beyond  the  property  of  the  Irish  Church, 
and  not  stop  short  of  the  landed  interest  ;  for  I  do  not  hesitate 
e  that  the  schemes  proposed  for  dealing  with  the  land  in 
Ireland   are   in   themselves   on   a   revolutionary   scale.      The 
mes  do  attack  the  rights  of  property,  and  those  who  argue 
that  you  may  justly  take  corporate  property  from  the  Church, 
depend  upon  it,  will  not  be  very  squeamish  hereafter  in  dealing 
with  other  property.     Well,  Sir,  in  speaking  of  this  question,  I 
will  not  hesitate  to  adopt  what  may  be  considered  a  legal  state- 
ment upon  the  question  of  corporate  property  made   by  the 
lancellor.     He  says— 

«« It  was  always  admitted  that  so  long  as  the  corporate  property  which 
the  title  to  ecclesiastical  property  remained,  so  long  as  the  pro- 
later  in  amount  than  can  be  usefully  applied  by  that  corporate 
light  of  principle  on  which  Parliament  can  interkre  to 
rty  of  that  kind." 

I  concur  in  that  principle.     It  is  a  principle  acted  on  with 

to  all  charity  property  by  the  Court  of  Chancery.     I 

it    is   a  just  rule,  and  one  which  we   cannot  violate 

without  assailing  the  interests  of  property.       The  right   hon. 

we  are  going  to  deal  tenderly  with  our  victims, 

i  pa-serve  vested  interests,  and  we  even  pro- 

beyond  that ;  but  at  that  moment  the  cheer  which 

maintaining  of  vested  rights  died  away — and 

•  inure  titan  vested  rights,  the  interests  of  curates  and  those 

.id  entered  <>n  some  miserable  benefice  with  the  hope  of 

•  i  better  things — I  found  that  cheering  checked; 

manifest  that  it  will  not  be  so  easy  for  the  right  hon. 

rry  into  act  his  tender  regard  for  those  who 

I    in  the   property  of  the  Irish  Church. 

!1  tided  were  the  vested  rights  of  the 

you  going  to  deal  with  the  rights  of  the 

1 1   with   the   clergy,   so    far   as  they  are 


Gat  home  Hardy  on  the  Irish  Church.      149 

personally  concerned,  by  paying  them  off,  pensioning  them,  or 
by  arranging  with  them  in  any  other  manner  you  please;  but 
when  you  come  to  the  vested  interests  of  the  laity,  which  are 
held  in  trust  for  them  by  the  Bishops  and  clergy,  and  not  for 
themselves,  how  are  you  to  compensate  them  for  the  vested 
interests  you  are  about  to  rob  them  of? 

The  right  hon.  gentleman  says  it  is  absurd  to  talk  of  what 
was  promised  in  former  years  in  order  to  gain  concessions 
when  engagements  were  made  that  if  a  particular  thing  were 
done,  it  would  produce  peace  and  harmony,  and  that  at  length 
we  should  see  our  efforts  in  respect  of  Ireland  crowned  with 
success.  Certainly  those  who  prophesied,  at  the  periods  to 
which  I  allude,  that  those  efforts  would  not  follow  have  had 
their  fears  amply  justified  by  the  result.  I  think  it  a  great 
misfortune  for  Ireland  that  the  hopes  which  then  actuated  those 
who  were  pleading  the  cause  of  the  Catholics,  and  the  promises 
which  they  made,  have  not  been  fulfilled.  Those  who  are  now 
advocating  the  Disestablishment  of  the  Protestant  Church  in 
Ireland  do  not  hold  the  opinions  of  Plunket,  Blake,  and  Peel, 
or  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Prelates,  or  of  the  Canonists  of 
Maynooth,  who  said  that  the  title  of  the  Established  Church  in 
Ireland  would  be  recognised  by  Rome  itself,  which  only  requires 
a  prescription  of  a  hundred  years,  while  the  Protestant  Church 
in  Ireland  has  lasted  for  three  hundred  years.  I  am  bound  to 
say  that  on  this  occasion  we  are  not  in  danger  of  being  led 
away  by  promises,  for  no  promises  are  held  out  that  what  we 
are  asked  to  do  will  in  any  way  tend  to  the  pacification  of 
Ireland,  or  that  are  to  be  more  than  a  step  to  new  departures. 
It  is  true  that  in  speeches  in  this  House  something  of  that  kind 
may  be  said ;  but  those  for  whose  benefit  the  property  of  the 
Church  is  to  be  taken  away  are  holding  out  no  promises.  They 
are  not  saying  that  they  have  not  in  reserve  a  demand  for 
concessions  which  they  regard  as  of  much  greater  importance. 
Those  "calm  men  of  Limerick"  to  whom  the  right  hon. 
gentleman  the  member  for  Calne  (Mr  Robert  Lowe)  alluded  a 
few  nights  ago,  say  that  they  do  not  believe  anything  will  do 


M  Political  Orations. 

F  the  people  of  Ireland  except  a  repeal 
omnl        ,  Irish  interests  to  an  Irish  Parhament 
dthe  member  for  Honiton  (Mr  R. 
ch  last  night,  (inoted  a  remarkable  pas- 
aid,  was  not  heard  by  as  many  as  ought  to 
>ws  that  the  persons  who  are  agitat- 
in  Ireland  [  ut  aside  the  Church  altogether 
At  a  meeting  of  the    Meath  Tenant-Right 
and  the  Roman  Catholic  Vicar- 
,.   this    statement  was   put   forward,  the 
on  the  occasion- 
question  for  Ireland  is  the  Land  Question. 
gainst  the   Established  Church,  got  up  for 
an  element  of  bigotry  into  the  already  dis- 
I  tenant,  would  effect  the  ruin  of  thousands 
that  social  catastrophe  which  we  are  anxious  to 

'  that,  by  holding  out  this  olive-branch  to 
all  that  is  required  ;  whilst  Lord 
1  and  Question  over  as  unworthy  of  his 
bids  us  bestow   on   the   Roman    Catholic 
tnd  what  they  themselves  regard  as  a  concession 
|  I 'lies  of  "  No,  no  !  "  ] 
me  to  an  important  question,  one  which 
lutions  of  the  right  hon.  gentleman, 
he  offered  us  no  solution,  and  without 
1        f,  we  cannot   fairly  and  honestly  vote 
[t  is  i   sentially  necessary  that  we  should 
that  is  to  be  proposed.     Are 
ou  n  cularize  the  revenues  of  the 

ind?     If  you  are  going  to  secularize 
OU    propose  to   apply  them?       The    main 
.  •  •  \\  hat  are  you  going  to  do  with  the  funds 
And  until  we  have  an  answer  to  it,  yotl 
i  of  persons  to  vote  on 
ni  anj  idea  of  the  principles  that 


Gathome  Hardy  on  the  Irish  Church.       1 5 1 

are  to  guide  them  hereafter.     The  hon.  member  for  Westmin- 
ster (Mr  J.  S.  Mill)  has  his  scheme,  and  would  apply  the  funds 
to  unsectarian  education.     But,  I  would  ask,  is  that  the  way  to 
conciliate  the  Roman  Catholics  of  Ireland?     If  there  is  one 
thing  which  they  have   been    setting  their  faces  against  more 
than   another,   it   is   unsectarian    education.     The   right   hon. 
gentleman  told  us  yesterday  that  it  was  not  to  be  endured  that 
the  tithes  of  Connaught  should  be  taken  and  applied  for  the  , 
benefit  of  Churchmen  in  Ulster;  but  I  want  to  know  whether 
it  is  to  be  endured  that  the  tithes  of  Connaught  are  to  be  applied 
to  the  building  of  lighthouses  near  Dublin  or  anywhere  else, 
and  whether,  when  improvements  are  made,  the  funds  are  to 
be  applied   for  Irish  purposes  generally,  or  expended  in  the 
locality  whence  they  are  derived  ?     If  the  funds  are  to  be  taken 
in  order  to  supply  the  wants  of  the  people  of  Ireland  generally, 
such  a  plan  will  be  quite  as  inconsistent  with  the  right  hon. 
gentleman's  powers  of  endurance  as  the  application  of  the  tithes 
of  Connaught   for  the    benefit   of  the   Churchmen   of  Ulster. 
This  is  not  a  separate  property,  and  does  not  belong  to  the 
people  of  Connaught  in  particular.     It  belongs  neither  to  the 
landlord  nor  to  the  tenant,  but  to  the  laity  of  Ireland ;  and  if  it 
is  for  the  improvement  of  their  religious  instruction,  I  say  it 
may  fairly  be  taken  and  applied  in  any  part  of  Ireland  where  it 
may  be  wanted.     I  pass  by  Earl  Russell's  scheme  of  redistribu- 
tion, which  no  one  is  ready  to  adopt,  and  which  the  noble  Lord 
himself  condemned  with  such  great  effect  very  recently  before 
he  adopted  it.     We  might,  therefore,  rely  on  his  condemnation 
as  sufficient  for  our  purpose. 

The  hon.  member  for  Birmingham  (Mr  Bright),  as  I 
understand  it,  would  leave  something  to  the  Church,  though 
he  would  take  away  a  good  deal  and  secularize  it  ;  but  he 
has  not  told  us  what  particular  mode  of  procedure  he  would 
recommend.  We  do  not  know,  therefore,  in  what  way  the 
money  is  to  be  dealt  with.  That  there  is  to  be  an  unsettle- 
ment  of  everything  is  clear,  and  it  is  also  clear  that  there 
is    to   be  a    settlement   of   nothing.     You   say  that  this  is  a 


M  Political  Orations. 

and  I,  for  one,  do  not  assert  that  the 
ance  being  sentimental  is  not  enough 
resent   it ;  but    I    maintain  that,  when 
grievance  on  the  one  side,  and  are 
re  than   sentimental   grievance   on   the 
lair  and  just  that  the  persons  on  whom  you 
the  experiment  should  know  what  is  to  be 
the  funds  of  which  you  are  about  to  despoil 
am  told,  of  all  things,  that  it  is  not  legitimate 
that  the  question  of  the  Irish  Church 
:  the  English  and  Scotch  Churches.      I 
rid   that  there  are  those   who  are  like  the 
emity,  who  threw  away  her  children  to  save 
iring  wolf;  but,  at  the  same  time,  I  do 
that  incident  to  have  been  regarded  as  a  very 
ling.     The  course  taken  by  that 
not  commend  itself  to  those  who  feel 
;   to   Ireland  by  sympathy  and  the   ties   of 
I    am   not   so   disposed   to   throw  her 
11   still   Less   deposed  to   do  so  when  a 
en    which   al  and    materially    affects — the 

the    Church    Establishment    rests    in 
whatever   may    be    said,    the   main 
which  I  used  by  the  right  hon.  gentleman 

i    who   sit   below   the   gangway,  and  with 
v     by     the     latter,     in    support     of    these 
in     favour     of    religious     equality.      Now, 
I    do  not  understand,    either   in   principle 
to  only  one  part  of  the  Empire.     I  say, 
nable  in  us  to  object,  if  you  are 
our  ('lunch,   that  on  that    principle 
the    whole,    and    upsetting    the 
tich    alone    the     Establishments    of    the 

1    State  —  can    be    defended.       If   it    is 

equality    that    there    should    be    no 

led  to   the   ministers  of  the 


Gat  home  Hardy  on  the  Irish  Church.       153 

Established  Church,  then  I  understand  the  argument.  It 
is  the  Voluntary  system,  pure  and  simple,  and  one  fairly 
to  be  debated  and  argued ;  but  you  cannot  justly  put 
forward  religious  equality  when  you  are  only  going  to  apply 
the  principle  to  a  small  part  of  the  Empire. 

What  will  be  gained  by  this  great  sacrifice  of  principles 
on  our  parts  if  we  are  to  accede  to  it  ?  You  have  promised 
us  nothing,  and  you  have  brought  nothing  before  us  to 
justify  such  a  sacrifice  ;  but  if  you  can  show  that  at  this 
dear  rate  you  can  bring  perfect  harmony  and  concord  in 
every  part  of  our  dominions,  Heaven  knows  how  many 
prejudices — how  many  sacrifices  of  a  deeper  nature — every- 
body would  be  ready  to  make  to  obtain  so  desirable  an 
object.  If  justice  required  that  we  should  give  up  those 
things  on  which  our  hearts  are  set — that  the  interests  of 
the  whole  country  required  it,  and  there  was  before  us  a 
certainty  of  obtaining  that  which  we  all  desire,  then  there 
are  reasons  for  renouncing  opinion,  and  I,  for  one,  if  I  could 
not  assent,  would  at  least  withdraw  out  of  my  way,  and  let 
others  carry  this  measure  for  the  benefit  of  all.  But  when 
I  do  not  see  that  the  desired  end  would  be  attained,  I 
then  continue  advocating  on  this  side  of  the  House  principles 
which  I  advocated  from  the  opposite  side  ;  and  if  changes 
in  those  principles  are  to  be  made,  it  shall  not  be  by  my 
hand  that  the  stab  shall  be  given,  and  not  on  these  Benches 
that  the  change  shall  be  made.  I  will  leave  to  others 
to  effect  purposes  which  I  may  no  longer  be  able  to  resist. 
Well,  Sir,  what  is  the  general  emergency  that  has  arisen, 
calling  on  us  to  make  those  enormous  sacrifices,  which 
likewise,  if  we  had  made,  we  should  have  been  taunted 
for  making  them  on  an  occasion  which  did  not  require  it 
to  be  done  ?  Is  it  the  miserable  Fenianism  that  has 
prevailed  in  this  country,  or  the  base  Fenianism  in  Ireland 
spoken  of  the  other  night,  calling  on  us  to  make  this  sacrifice 
of  our  time,  of  our  duty,  of  all  that  is  dear  to  us,  in  order 
to  get  rid  of  what  would  not  be  affected  by  it  for  a  moment  ? 


Modem  Political  Orations. 

lSpension  of  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act?     We  have 
5pension   of  the   Habeas   Corpns    Act   for   many 
interfered   practically    with    the    liberties    of 
rid    in    the   way   it   has   been   used?     Has   it  interfered 
rdinary  progress  of  business?     Has  it  interfered 
ous    freedom?      Has    it    interfered    with    ordinary 
intercourse?     Has   it   not   rather   been    used   in 
,    in    order   to   give   greater   security    to    the    real 
Ireland,   by  checking  that  which  is  lawless,  and 
real    loyalty    and    liberty?       If   you    are    to    take 
round,  you    will    only    be  adding   another  to   the  right 
itleman's  list  of  dates  which   were   last    night   cited 
the  imbecility  and   weakness  of  the  English  Parlia- 
injustice,  its  unfairness,  its  readiness  to  do  wrong 
the    wrong   could    be   done  with   impunity ;   and 
US   that   up  to   the   present    time    we   had   abstained 
justice    to    Ireland,    but  now    these    things   must 
way,   and   he   threw   it  in   the  teeth  of  Parliament 
t  had  never  done  an   act   of  justice  to   Ireland   without 
compelled  to  do  so.     That,  I  think,  is  one  of  the 
:  Parliament,  which  ought  not  to  be  recorded  as  a 
held  up  as  an  example  to  be  followed  on  the  present 
>n. 
Well,  I  think  I  have  shown  that  the  present  is  not  a  fitting 
\  hich  such  a  change,  if  it  were  necessary,  should  be 
;  and    I    state   boldly  that   nothing  which   has   been  put 
by    the    right    hon.    gentleman    is    sufficient   to    con- 
that  the  people  of  this  country  repose  any 
the   views   of   the   right   hon.    gentleman   the 
outh   I  Lancashire  on  this  question.     Surely,  then, 
:it  to  be  consulted  before  such  a  change  is  made. 
1  the  first   Resolution,  if  you  should  pass  it,  is 

Parliament  to  which  it  will  pass  on  from  the 
I  I  say  that  if  you  throw  aside  a  com- 

and  say,  "  That  is  not  to  bind 
.  that  this  Resolution,  passed  by  a 


Gathome  Hardy  on  the  Irish  Church.      155 

dying  Parliament,  is  to  bind  its  successor?  You  are  putting 
this  branch  of  the  Legislature  in  an  undue  position.  There  is  a 
complaint  that  the  House  of  Lords  has  nothing  to  do.  The 
reason  is  because  you  will  not  test  its  power  to  work.  But  it 
is  an  Assembly  equal  to  this  ;  and  when  you  are  calling  upon 
us  to  proceed  upon  this  dangerous  and  revolutionary  path— 
for  so  it  was  called  by  the  right  hon.  baronet  the  member  for 
Morpeth  (Sir  George  Grey)— you  ought,  at  all  events,  to  call 
into  council  that  branch  of  the  Legislature  without  which  you 
cannot  legislate.  Again,  I  say,  suppose  you  carry  this  Resolu- 
tion, you  do  not  show  us  the  object  in  view,  or  that  you  obtain  the 
peace  of  Ireland.  On  the  contrary,  you  would  increase  many 
of  her  evils.  You  complain  of  absenteeism ;  well,  by  the 
adoption  of  your  scheme,  I  believe  that  you  would  increase  it, 
and  cause  it  to  extend  among  the  landlords  as  well  as  the 
clergy.  [Laughter.]  In  answer  to  that  laugh,  I  may  observe 
that  the  right  hon.  gentleman  the  member  for  South  Lanca- 
shire admitted  that  in  all  the  great  emergencies  the  clergy 
in  Ireland  had  been  found  at  the  bedside  of  the  sick  and 
in  the  cottages  of  the  poor.  I  believe  that  the  charities  of 
Ireland  owe  more  to  the  clergy  than  to  any  other  class  of  the 
community. 

We  have  been  asked  what  course  we  intend  to  take  upon 
this  question.  In  the  first  place,  if,  in  spite  of  the  objection 
that  we  have  taken,  I  believe  justly,  to  the  Resolutions  of  the 
right  hon.  gentleman,  you  succeed  in  overthrowing  the  Amend- 
ment, our  course  is  clear.  We  shall  oppose  the  Resolutions 
themselves.  If  you  ask  what  we  would  do— not  in  this  Parlia- 
ment, because  it  would  have  no  opportunity  of  doing  anything, 
but  in  the  next  Parliament — in  the  event  of  the  Resolutions  being 
carried,  my  reply  is  that  I  will  give  the  right  hon.  gentleman 
no  other  pledge  than  this— that  we  will  act  in  accordance  with 
the  former  part  of  the  Amendment,  and  if,  on  the  report  of  the 
Commission,  we  are  satisfied  that  it  would  be  for  the  benefit  of 
the  Irish  Church  that  certain  modifications  in  it  should  be 
made,  we  will  make  them  with  a  fearless  hand.     But  if  you  ask 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

.  go  further,  I  will  say,  at  least  for  myself,  as  I  have  upon 

er  occasions,  that  I  will  not  be  a  party  to  a  measure  of 

;  the  Irish  Church.     I  am  not  prepared  to  sever 

from    England  in  religious   matters,  and    present  the 

of  a   Government  in  Ireland  of  a  purely   secular 

r.  and  a  Government  in  England  partially  religious. 

My  form  of  expression  is  not,  I  am  aware,  as 

;s  I  would  wish ;  but  what  I  meant  to  say  was,  that.  I 

will  not  consent  to  an  anomaly  that  Church  and  State  should 

red  in  Ireland,  and  remain  connected  in  England. 

ight  hon.  gentleman  said  that  the  disestablishment  of  the 

sh   Church  would,  as  respected   the  Irish  people,  "  Pluck 

i    the    memory   a   rooted   sorrow ;    Raze   out    the   written 

,les   of  the  brain  "  ;  but  he  quite  omitted  to  quote   the 

■  ling  line,  "  Can'st  thou  minister  to  a  mind  diseased?" 

s  the  mind  of  Ireland  that  is  diseased — a  disease  caused  by 

;  traditionary  hatred  of  the  Saxon,  and   kept  alive  by 

tation  and  misrepresentation.     It  is  thus  you  have, 

s  I  be        .  diseased  the  kindly  and  generous  mind  of  Ireland, 

:h,  hut  for  that  pernicious  agitation,  I  believe  would  have 

n  in  harmony  with  us  at  the  present  moment.     The  drug, 

.  which  the  right  hon.  gentleman  proposes  to  administer 

ild  i  i  "sweet  oblivious  antidote,"    to  appease  the 

;  mind  of  the  disloyal,  who  would  rather  ask  for 

"  purgative  to  scour  these  English  hence."    The  measure 

ed  by  the  right  hon.  gentleman  would  not  tend  in  any 

•  to  I  end — to  conciliate  those  who  first  of  all 

lem  that  the  Land  Question  was  to  be  settled  on  a  basis 

in  a  way   to  which  the  present  Parliament  would  never 

ml  that  in  the  end  there  is  to  be  a  repeal  of  that  Union 

ind  fundamental  basis  of  which  was  the  United 

land  ami  Ireland. 

ced  through  the  speeches  that  have  been  made  in 

For  a  statement  of  the   specific  wrongs — wrongs 

remedies.     I  have  looked  in  vain  to  find 

ire  to  give  these  funds  which  you  are  going  to 


Gat  home  Hardy  on  the  Irish  Church.      157 

take  away  from  those  now  in  possession  of  them.  I  have 
looked  in  vain  for  any  statement  in  former  debates  or  in  this 
which  will  lead  me  to  a  conclusion  upon  this  vital  question.  I 
say  your  Resolutions  are  founded  on  principles  repugnant  to,  and 
far  away  from,  the  theory  and  the  practice  of  the  Constitution  of 
this  country,  and  will  be  provocative  of  strife,  of  enmity,  and  of 
dissension,  instead  of  paving  the  way  for  peace  and  harmony 
between  England  and  Ireland.  If  they  conciliate  one  party, 
they  will  irritate  another ;  and  although  I  will  never  believe 
that  the  Protestants  of  Ireland  will  become  disloyal,  yet  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  it  will  excite  among  them  discontent  and 
disaffection  ;  there  will  be  the  injustice  which  is  done  them, 
which  must  in  the  end  react  upon  England.  I  feel  bound, 
where  no  wrong  has  been  done  in  the  use  of  property  by  those 
to  whom  it  belongs,  to  protest  against  the  spoliation  of  it.  I 
feel  doubly  bound,  both  as  a  just  man  and  as  an  Englishman, 
to  be  true  to  the  compact  which  is  in  force  between  the  two 
countries.  As  a  Churchman  I  cannot  be  indifferent  to  the  con- 
dition of  my  brethren  in  the  faith  in  Ireland.  I  cannot  be 
indifferent  to  the  clergy  who  so  zealously  and  so  effectually 
have  performed  their  duties  in  that  country.  To  that  fact  I 
call  to  witness  those  gentlemen  who  are  most  opposed  to  the 
old  endowments.  I  cannot  be  a  party  to  sever  that  union 
between  Church  and  State,  under  which  it  is  the  glory  and  the 
privilege  of  the  State  to  uphold  the  light  of  the  Reformation  in 
Ireland, 


EARL  RUSSELL  ON  THE  BALLOT. 

House  of  Lords,  July  8th,  1872. 

ac-11  known  that  LORDjOHN  Russell  was  always  a  vigorous  opponent 

The  following  speech  during  the  debates  on  the  Parlia- 

md  Municipal   Elections  Bill  exhibits  his  peculiar  views  on  this 

1   think   I   may  venture  to  address  your  Lordships  on  the 

^•nt  occasion,  as  my  attention   has  been   directed  to  the 

subj  the   Ballot  for  more  than  forty  years.     When,   in 

Ministry  of  the  late   Karl  Grey  was  formed  on  the 

principle  of  introducing  the  question  of  Parliamentary  Reform 

Ministerial   question,   I   was  one  of  a  Committee  of  the 

whom  was  committed  the  charge  of  drawing  up  the 

f  the  first   Reform  Bill      The  proposals  of  that  Com- 

recommendation  of  the  Ballot.     When  Earl 

»ke  to  me  of  the  scheme,  he  said  that  while  the  Cabinet 

lially  approved  of  the  measure  as  a  whole,  there  was  one 

t  of  it  to  which  they  could  by  no  means  assent — namely,  the 

Ballot      11<  asked  me  whether  I  attached  much  importance  to 

nt,  and  whether  I  was  willing  to  give  it  up.      My  answer 

at,  in  fa<  t,   I    bad  used  every  argument  to  induce  the 

not  to  insert   the  ballot  in  their  proposals.     The 

Ballol  was  consequently  omitted  from  the 

I  which  I   introduced  into  the  House  of  Commons, 

in  any  of  the  subsequent  Bills.     Since 

I  watched  all  the  discussions  that  have  been 

Ballot  question,  and  have  taken  part  in  some, 


Earl  Russell  on  the  Ballot.  1 59 

and  have  seen  no  ground  for  changing  the  opinions  I  enter- 
tained forty  years  ago.  The  late  Sir  Robert  Peel  was  as  much 
opposed  to  the  Ballot  as  Earl  Grey.  Many  noble  Lords  will 
remember  the  speech  of  wonderful  argumentative  force  and 
eloquence  which  he  delivered  against  Mr  Grote's  motion  in 
1838.  The  result  of  the  debate  on  that  occasion  was  that  the 
motion  of  Mr  Grote  was  rejected  by  a  majority  of  117.  The 
present  Prime  Minister  (Mr  Gladstone)  has  eight  or  nine  times 
voted  against  the  Ballot  in  the  House  of  Commons. 

It  was  therefore  with  no  little  surprise  that  I  heard  the  year 
before  last  that  Mr  Gladstone  had  suddenly  announced  that  he 
had  become  a  convert  to  it.  The  reason  given  for  this  sudden 
conversion  was  twofold — first,  that  secret  voting  had  been 
adopted  all  over  the  world  ;  and,  secondly,  that  now  every 
adult  person  in  England  had  the  right  of  voting.  These  two 
reasons  are  no  doubt  plausible ;  but  the  allegations  on  which 
they  rest  are  totally  inadequate.  With  regard  to  the  first,  it  is 
far  from  being  true  that  the  Ballot  has  been  introduced  all  over 
the  world.  It  has  not  been  adopted  even  in  all  our  own 
Colonies.  The  good  sense  of  the  people  of  the  Dominion  has 
refused  to  accept  its  introduction  in  Canada,  and  if  I  do  not 
mistake,  the  use  of  secret  voting  has  not  been  practically 
adopted  in  our  great  Colony  of  Victoria.  Secret  Ballot  does 
not  really  exist  in  half  of  the  States  of  the  American  Union. 
In  the  New  England  State  of  Massachusetts  a  law  was  passed 
by  which  a  voter  might  go  to  a  public  office  and  ask  for  an 
envelope  in  which  he  might  enclose  his  vote,  and  thus  if  he 
chose  keep  the  way  in  which  he  voted  a  secret.  That  was,  if 
anything,  an  "  optional  Ballot  " — the  secrecy  was  in  the  abso- 
lute power  of  the  voter  himself.  At  the  end  of  three  or  four 
years  some  curious  people  wished  to  know  how  many  of  those 
envelopes  had  been  taken,  and  whether  any  great  number  of 
the  electors  had  chosen  to  vote  secretly.  It  was  found  that 
very  few,  if  any,  of  the  electors  had  taken  those  envelopes,  or 
chosen  to  vote  secretly.  The  law  was  therefore  repealed,  and 
everyone  voted  openly.     No  doubt,  open  voting  gives  oppor- 


i  oo  Modern  Political  Orations. 

tunity   for    intimidation;    but,    in    my   opinion,    the   system 

ed  in  the  present  measure  will  increase  personation, 

will  increase  bribery,  will  increase  fraud  and  falsehood  of  every 

-indeed,  in  whatever  light  secret  voting  is  viewed,  it  seems 

a  bad  system  ;  it  is  nothing  but  an  increased  power  of  corrup- 

in  every  direction.     It  will  encourage  falsehood,  for  it  is 

e  possible  under  the  Ballot  that  a  voter  may  be  intimidated 

s  landlord  into  promising  his  vote;  but  having  the  power 

will   secretly  vote   against   his   promise.     He  would 

then  go  to  his  landlord  and  say,  "  I  voted  as  you  asked  me ;  I 

quite  agree  in  your  opinions,  and  have  voted  with  you."     It 

some  such  argument  as  this  that  Mr  Grote  put  forward 

in  proof  of  the  value  of  the  Ballot  in  checking  the  influence  of 

1  and  employer,  and  he  maintained  that  the  tenant 

would  be  perfectly  justified  in  acting  in  this  way. 

It  seems,  however,  to  me  that  though  the  intimidation  may 

fail  as  to  the  actual  vote,  the  Ballot  will  introduce  a  new  form 

iud  and  distrust  which  will  not  be  much  preferable  to  the 

I  fashioned    intimidation.       The    Englishman's    privilege    of 

ig  should  be  as  sacredly  respected;  he  should  have 

lit  of  voting  openly  as  he  has  by  the  existing  law  ; 

there  is  no  reason  why  the  electors  of  Old  England 

•  deprived  of  a   privilege   of  open  voting  which  is 

I   by  the  voters   of  New   England.     It   seems  to  me 

a  j  ument    in   support   of  open   voting   that   a   man 

of  promoting  some  great  public  question ;  of 

;  that  would  improve   the  condition  of  his  fellow- 

>re  likely  than  any  other  man  to  give  his  vote 

d  will  be  proud  of  proclaiming  his  support  of  a 

who    holds    large    and    liberal    views.       When    Sir 

ed  in  his  endeavours  to  mitigate  the 

mr  criminal   code,  and  was  a  candidate  for  West- 

sympathising  with  his  efforts,  was  proud  to 

"  I  vi  nuel   Uoinilly!"     Why  should  not  a  voter 

o  proclaim  his  sympathy  with  a  man  whose  life  is 

the  sufferings  of  his  fellow-men?     Or 


Earl  Russell  on  the  Ballot.  1 6 1 

again,  when  Wilberforce  stood  before  the  great  constituency  of 
Yorkshire,  the  champion  of  the  abolition  of  slavery  throughout 
the  world — a  -great  and  noble  aspiration — surely  the  electors 
should  not  be  prohibited  from  proclaiming  openly,  in  the  face 
of  all  men,  "  I  vote  for  Mr  Wilberforce  and  the  Emancipation 
of  the  human  race  !  "  This  Bill  will  make  the  revelation  of  his 
vote  an  offence  and  a  crime  on  the  part  of  the  official  persons 
who  are  in  the  polling-booth  at  the  time.  It  is  provided  by 
this  Bill  that  the  voter,  having  secretly  marked  his  vote  on  the 
ballot-paper,  and  folded  it  up  so  as  to  conceal  his  vote,  shall 
place  it  in  a  closed  box.  There  is,  indeed,  no  penalty  imposed 
on  the  voter  for  telling  his  vote,  but  every  officer,  clerk,  and 
agent  in  attendance  at  a  polling-station  who  shall  communicate 
at  any  time,  to  any  person,  any  information  obtained  in  a 
polling-station,  as  to  the  candidate  for  whom  any  voter  in  such 
station  is  about  to  vote,  or  has  voted,  will  be  liable,  on  sum- 
mary conviction  before  two  Justices  of  the  Peace,  to  imprison- 
ment for  any  term  not  exceeding  six  months,  with  or  without 
hard  labour. 

I  feel  ashamed  that  such  a  proposition  should  have  come  up 
from  the  other  House.  Surely  it  is  a  degradation  to  which  the 
country  will  never  submit.  As  to  the  allegation  that  every 
adult  man  in  England  has  the  right  of  voting,  it  is  allowed  by 
Mr  Gladstone  himself  not  to  be  an  accurate  statement,  and 
he  rebukes  Mr  Disraeli  for  supposing  that  every  man  who 
marries  has  the  right  of  voting.  I  must,  in  addition,  point  out 
that  our  whole  progress  for  the  last  century  and  a  half  has  been 
in  favour  of  publicity.  There  was  a  time  when  the  proceedings 
of  Parliament  were  published  under  the  disguise  of  "  Debates 
in  the  Senate  of  Lilliput,"  and  notes  of  the  speeches  were  pre- 
fixed by  fictitious  names.  I  remember,  in  my  own  time,  seeing 
the  Serjeant-at-Arms  bring  before  the  House  a  man  whom  he 
found  making  notes  in  the  Gallery.  Since  that  time  we  have 
gone  on  introducing  more  and  more  publicity  in  the  transaction 
of  public  affairs.  The  debates  in  Parliament  are  reported  day 
by  day,  under  the  real  names  of  the  speakers,  and  are  openly 

L 


Modem  Political  Orations. 

discussed  the  next  morning  in  the  journals  throughout  the  king- 
The  proceedings  of  the  Courts  of  Law  are  public,  and  the 
,an  who  is  called  upon  to  give  evidence  in  a  Court  of  Law  is  not 
A  the  shelter  of  secrecy  even  where— as  is  too  often  the 
e  in  Ireland— his  giving  evidence  may  be  attended  with  risk 
No  exemptions  are  made ;  all  questions  affecting 
Band  property  are  decided  in  public.     Yet  it  is  now  proposed 
if  a  man  comes  to  the  polling-booth,  and  says,  "  I  wish  to 
for  Lord  Enfield,"  so  essential  is  secrecy  in  the  perform- 
•  public  duty,  that  the  open  declaration  of  a  man's  wish 
ind  opinion  by  an  officer  in  the  polling-booth  is  declared  to  be 
ad;  and  a  crime.     We  declare  that  publicity  must  be  the 

rule  of  our  Law  Courts,  whatever  the  consequences.     In  one  of 
our  Courts,  presided  over  by  a  member  of  this  House,  cases 
e  of  which  the  publicity  is  injurious  to  morality  and  offen- 
to   decency  ;   nevertheless,   no  exception  is  made.     Pro- 
als  have  been  made  that  in  the  Divorce  Court  proceedings 
be  taken  in  secrecy,  if  the  Judge  shall  think  fit ;  but  no— 
the  noble  and  learned    Lord   who   presides  over  that  Court 
approves   of  publicity;    and   by  means    of  this   publicity  all 
may  read    the   details  of  these  trials   in    the  public 
journals.     At  whatever  cost,  the  Law  must  be  administered  in 
but  when  you  come  to  the  election  of  the  law-givers — 
iential  in  the  performance  of  this  form  of  public 
—the  vote  must  be  so  entirely  in  the  bosom  of  the  voter 
ssible  that  publicity  can  be  allowed — the  vote 
ven   in  secret.     The  man  who  is  in  office  in  the 
trs  a  person  say,  "I  vote  for  Lord  Enfield,"  or, 
Lord  I  Hamilton,"  is  liable  to  six  months' 

mply  monstrous.     The  people  of  England  have  for 

of  years  been   free  to  go  to  the  poll  and  say,   "1 

I   such  a  man,   because    I   look   upon  him  as 

Bui  this  is  no  longer  to  be  allowed, — secrecy, 

ih  to  be  the  rule. 

i  into  tl  m  o!  the  ulterior  results  of  secret 


Earl  Russell  on  the  Ballot.  163 

voting,  but  I  do  not  believe  it  will  long  stand  alone.  Probably 
it  will  lead  in  no  very  long  time  to  Universal  Suffrage.  I  can- 
not forbear  from  noting  the  language  of  the  Administration  of 
Earl  Grey  in  reference  to  the  great  plans  for  Parliamentary 
Reform  which  they  had  laid  before  Parliament.  In  1831  there 
appeared  the  following  passage  in  the  Speech  from  the 
Throne — 

"I  have  availed  myself  of  the  earliest  opportunity  of  resorting  to  your 
advice  and  assistance  after  the  dissolution  of  the  late  Parliament.  Having 
had  recourse  to  that  measure  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  sense  of 
my  people  on  the  expediency  of  a  Reform  in  the  Representation,  I  have  now 
to  recommend  that  important  question  to  your  earliest  and  most  attentive 
consideration,  confident  that,  in  any  measures  which  you  may  prepare  for 
its  adjustment,  you  will  carefully  adhere  to  the  acknowledged  principles  of 
the  Constitution,  by  which  the  prerogative  of  the  Crown,  the  authority  of 
both  Houses  of  Parliament,  and  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  people  are 
equally  secured." 

That  was  firm  and  clear  language.  No  such  language  is  heard 
in  these  days.  On  the  contrary,  when  a  question  arises  affecting 
the  hereditary  rights  of  your  Lordships,  the  Prime  Minister 
says,  "  I  will  think  once,  twice,  or  thrice  before  touching 
such  a  question."  That,  however,  was  not  the  course  adopted 
by  the  people  of  England  upon  a  recent  occasion.  When  the 
people  of  England  found  that  the  life  of  the  Heir  to  the  Throne 
was  in  peril,  they  did  not  think  thrice,  or  twice,  or  even  once ; 
but  by  one  unanimous  voice,  as  if  impelled  by  instinct,  in 
supplication  for  the  Heir  to  the  Throne,  they  put  up  prayers  to 
Heaven  for  his  recovery.  It  is  not  by  measures  of  this  kind, 
but  by  feelings  such  as  those  which  animated  the  whole  people 
during  that  crisis — and  which,  I  trust,  will  ever  be  the  senti- 
ments of  the  people  of  England — that  the  Constitution  can  be 
preserved,  and  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  people  secured. 


ISAAC  BUTT  ON   HOME   RULE. 

House  of  Commons,  March  2oth,  1874. 

In  the  debate  on  the  Address  to  be  presented  in  answer  to  the  Queen's 

h  on  the  assembling  of  the   New  Parliament,  Mk   Butt  seized  the 

-unity  to  introduce  a  Motion  which,  though  at  the  time  rejected,  was 

i  play  an  important  part  in  the  history  of  the  country.     This  was 

si   intimation  of  the  Home  Rule   Movement,  since  the  time  of 

1  laniel  O'Connell,  in  Parliament] 

ng  an  Amendment  to  the  Address,  I  am  fully  aware  of 

abjection  that  may  be  raised  to  a  course  being  followed 

which  will  bring  controversial  questions  to  the  vote  on  such  an 

:  as  the  present.  I  venture  at  the  same  time  to  think 
that,  if  the  House  favours  me  with  a  hearing,  I  shall  be  able  to 
fy  hon.  members  that  I  am  justified  in  acting  as  I  do  ;  I 
h  :,  in  short,  to  show  that  there  is  an  absolute  necessity  for 
giving  Ireland  a  new  system  of  internal  Government.  The 
proposal  I  desire  to  submit  to  the  House  is  that  the  following 

lie  added  to  the  Address — 

think  it  ri;;lil  humbly  to  represent  to  Your  Majesty  that  dis- 

:tion  prevails  ver)  extensively  in  Iieland  with  the  existing  system  of 

ountry,  and  that  complaints  are  made  that  under  that 

•  Irish  people  do  not  enjoy  the  full  benefits  of  the  Constitution 

principles  of  the  law  ;  and  we  humbly  assure  Your  Majesty 

shall  regard  it  as  the  duty  of  Parliament,  on  the  earliest  oppor- 

;in  of  (his  dissatisfaction   with  a  view  to  the 

I  of  all  es  ol  discontent." 

there  is  on.-  result  of  this  dissatisfaction  in  Ireland, 

ed  bj  the  rei  ent  elections,  to  which  no  person  can  be 

it,  and   whi(  li   no  wise  statesman  can  disregard.     For 


Isaac  Butt  on  Home  Rule.  165 

the  first  time  since  the  Act  of  Union,  a  majority — I  will  call  it 
a  decisive  majority — of  Irish  members  has  been  returned 
pledged  to  seek  such  a  modification  of  the  arrangements  of 
the  Union  as  would  give  to  Irishmen  in  Ireland  the  right  of 
managing  their  own  affairs.  I  refer  to  this  fact  as  evidence 
of  dissatisfaction  with  the  existing  state  of  things.  The  Irish 
members  who  have  been  returned  as  Home  Rulers  are  a 
decisive  majority  of  the  Irish  representatives,  and  these  have 
not  been  pledged  to  any  mere  vague  declaration  in  favour  of 
Home  Rule.  Those  who  have  thought  it  right  to  endeavour 
to  excite  the  attention  of  the  country  to  the  question  of  Home 
Rule  have  deliberately  prepared  and  put  before  the  country 
the  plan  contained  in  the  Resolution,  which,  I  venture  to  say, 
is  framed  in  terms  as  clear  and  distinct  as  possible.  We  ask 
that  Ireland  shall  have  the  management  of  exclusively  Irish 
affairs.  Our  plan  would  relieve  the  House  of  business  which 
it  has  not  the  time,  and,  I  may  say,  without  disrespect,  the 
capacity,  to  manage.  Our  plan  would  not  in  the  slightest 
degree  affect  the  prerogative  of  the  Crown  or  the  stability  of  the 
Empire.  We  see  no  reason  why  an  Irish  Parliament  could  not 
manage  exclusively  Irish  affairs  without  endangering  the 
stability  of  the  Empire.  Has  the  grant  of  Parliaments  to 
Canada,  Australia,  and  other  Colonies  endangered  the  stability 
of  the  Empire?  I  believe  I  speak  for  every  member  who  has 
been  returned  for  Ireland  on  the  Home  Rule  principle,  when 
I  say  that  we  repudiate,  in  the  strongest  terms,  the  slightest 
wish  to  break  up  the  unity  of  the  Empire,  or  to  bring  about 
a  collision  between  England  and  Ireland.  We  make  no  secret 
that  they  have  all  been  elected  to  put  forward  the  claim  of 
Ireland  to  Home  Rule,  and,  whether  rightly  or  wrongly,  we 
have  come  to  an  agreement  among  ourselves  that  we  will  act 
separately  and  independently  of  all  existing  political  com- 
binations in  this  House. 

Whether  this  course  is  wise  or  not,  it  certainly  is  a  new 
feature  in  Irish  politics,  and  one  that  cannot  be  overlooked. 
We  take  up  this  position  because  we  cannot  acquiesce  in  any- 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

.hing  that  appears  to  us  to  imply  that  there  is  nothing  in  the 

Ireland   that  requires  a  remedy.     In  taking  up  this 

ion  I   feel  that  we  have  taken  a  great  responsibility  upon 

and  I  know  the  difficulty  of  our  position.     I  know 

■judice  which  the  statement  that  we  have  determined  to 

ndently   of  political   combinations   must   naturally 

.  but  I  would  ask  this  House  to  judge  us  by  our  con- 

We  would  pursue  a  course  very  different  from  anything 

I  think  I  may  base  the  first  part  of  this  Amend- 

the  mere  fact  that  a  majority  of  the  Irish  members 

returned  expressly  to  endeavour  to  obtain  for  Ireland  self- 

-nment.     I  know  not  what  stronger  proof  can  be  given  of 

faction  existing  in  Ireland.     This  dissatisfaction  has 

institutionally  expressed.      It  has  not  been  expressed 

irbances,  such  as  on  former  occasions  have  been 

I  in  the  Queen's  Speech.     The  Irish  people  have  made 

litical  movement  at  a  time  when  perfect  tranquillity 

;  throughout  the  country,  and  in  all  the  agitation  by 

the   result    has   been   brought   about   there   has    been 

unconstitutional   or   illegal.     It   has   been   expressed 

that   political   franchise  which  has  been  given  to  them 

e  of  declaring  their  political  opinion.     Ireland  at 

tate  of  perfect  tranquillity.     The  Assizes  that 

sed   have  ended  in  every  place  with  congratula- 

i  the  upon  the  peaceableness  of  the  different 

In  the  last  Summer  Assizes  in  the  city  I  have  the 

•nt  (Limerick),  white  gloves  were  given  to  the 

not  being  a  single  prisoner  to  be  tried.     In  the 

ither  great  city  in  the  south  of  Ireland,  the 

urred.      I    think   the  dissatisfaction   in 

th(    1  louse,  I  will  not  say  to  alter  or  reverse 

n   hitherto  pursued  with  reference  to 

ily  to  review  calmly  and  deliberately  that 

in  the  causes  that  have  given  rise  to  the 

the  management  of  Irish  affairs  by  this 


Isaac  Butt  on  Home  Rule.  167 

I  think  I  need  not  go  far  to  justify  the  second  part  of  this 
Amendment,  which  affirms  that  the  Irish  people  complain  that 
they  have  not  had  the  full  benefits  of  the  Constitution  of  Eng- 
land. I  believe  that  at  this  moment  Ireland  is  under  a  code 
of  law  which  for  severity  has  not  its  parallel  in  any  European 
State.  I  will  not  speak  for  a  moment  of  the  law  that  prevails 
all  over  Ireland  independently  of  the  will  of  the  Lord-Lieu- 
tenant. The  Lord-Lieutenant  has  power,  by  proclamation,  to 
make  it  illegal  in  any  district  to  carry  arms  without  a  licence 
from  a  police  magistrate ;  and  any  man  having  a  gun,  a  pistol, 
or  dagger  is  liable,  unless  he  have  a  magistrate's  licence,  to 
imprisonment  for  two  years.  Of  the  thirty-two  counties  in 
Ireland,  twenty-six  have  been  proclaimed ;  the  greater  part  of 
five  others  has  been  proclaimed ;  and  there  is  just  one  county 
in  Ireland,  designated  Tyrone,  which  is  free  from  proclamation. 
Of  the  eight  counties  and  cities,  Carrickfergus  only  is  free  from 
proclamation.  Now  this,  I  think,  is  a  very  startling  state  of 
things  in  Ireland.  But  more  than  this — at  any  time  of  the 
night,  in  any  district  where  this  law  prevails,  any  policeman 
holding  a  warrant  may  demand  to  be  admitted  into  any  house 
in  a  proclaimed  district,  and  may  break  open  the  door  if 
admittance  be  refused,  to  search  the  house  for  arms ;  and  one 
hundred  and  nineteen  of  these  general  warrants  are  now  in 
operation.  Even  this  is  not  all.  By  proclamation  the  Lord- 
Lieutenant  may  make  it  a  crime  to  be  out  of  doors  after  dark ; 
while  by  another  proclamation  he  can  empower  the  police  to 
seize  any  stranger;  and  a  large  portion  of  Ireland  is  at  present 
under  this  law.  By  another  proclamation  any  magistrate  or 
police  officer  may  demand  admittance  to  any  man's  house,  and 
ransack  his  papers  for  the  purpose  of  comparing  the  hand- 
writing with  the  handwriting  of  a  threatening  letter.  Let  it 
not  be  insinuated  that  these  powers  are  never  used.  On  one 
occasion  a  number  of  young  men,  one  of  whom  was  the  son  of 
a  respectable  merchant,  determined  to  play  "  Hamlet."  A 
police  inspector,  hearing  of  this,  went  to  the  theatre,  arrested 
the  young  gentleman,  and  kept  him  in  prison  from  Saturday 


Modem  Political  Orations. 

rning,  when  he  was  brought  before  a 

on   a   charge  of  having   arms    in    his    possession. 

uent  occurrence  in  Ireland.     Under 

tiing  for  arms  the  police  often  seek  to  pro- 

s  and  thefts,  and  these  powers  may 

.  :  .r  many  other  purposes.     I  care  not  how  these  pro- 

nded,  for  I  am  sure  they  are  not  necessary. 

.  I  think,  amply  justifies  me  in  saying  that  Ireland  does 

of  the  British  Constitution,  nor  the 

the   English  law.     These  powers  are  in  con- 

W'ith  regard  to  arresting  persons  after  sunset,  I  will 

what  occurred  on  the  fifth  of  the  present  month, 

unt  which  appeared  in  a  very  respectable 

irly  in  the  morning  on  that  day  a  band  went  to 

tion  meeting.     In  going  through  the  town  they 

which,  however,  was  not  a  party  tune — and 

of  the  place  were  naturally  attracted  by  the 

d,  and  then  a  policeman  thought  fit 

k    an    offence    had    been   committed   against   the   law. 

•    instable  followed  two  young  men,  whom  he 

distance  of  two  miles,  and  at  six  minutes 

just  after  sunset,  he  told  them  they  were  out 

rcumstances.     Thereupon  he  carried  them 

th<  detained  until   they  were   brought 

the  next  day.     Is  this  a  state  of  things 

I    in    a    country    which    is    nomi- 

British  Constitution?     The  police  in  Ireland 

A  high  Conservative  authority 

'   11     times    as    numerous    as    they    need 

ping  the  peace;  and  the  late  Lord 

.    converting    them   into   a  military  force, 

of    crime   has   been    destroyed. 

the  police  the  masters  of  the  daily  life 

have  been  termed  an  "army 

the  <  i\  il  power  of  acountry  is  confided 

lentified  with  the  idea  of  conquest 


Isaac  Butt  on  Home  Rule.  169 

But  how  does  Ireland  stand  with  regard  to  other  matters  ? 
In  the  first  place,  the  franchise  is  not  the  same  as  in  England. 
When  the  late  Reform  Act  was  passed  for  England,  household 
suffrage  was  introduced  into  the  boroughs  ;  whereas  in  Ireland 
no  one  can  vote  in  a  borough  unless  he  have  a  rating  qualifi- 
cation above  ^4.  Moreover,  the  franchise  in  Ireland  is 
encumbered  by  so  many  vexatious  rules  about  rating  that  it  is 
difficult  for  anybody  to  obtain  a  vote.  In  England,  with  a 
population  of  26,000,000,  as  many  as  1,200,000  enjoy  the 
town  franchise ;  while  in  Ireland,  with  a  population  of 
5,000,000,  there  are  just  50,000  town  voters,  of  whom  30,000 
are  to  be  found  in  Belfast,  Dublin,  Cork,  and  Limerick.  In 
the  whole  of  the  rest  of  Ireland  only  20,000  persons  are 
admitted  to  what  ought  to  be  a  popular  franchise.  Perhaps  it 
may  be  said  that  the  town  population  of  Ireland  is  not  so 
large  as  that  of  England.  This  is  doubtless  true,  but  in  Eng- 
land one  man  out  of  every  eight  has  the  franchise,  whereas  in 
Ireland  only  one  man  out  of  every  twenty  has  it.  I  will  ask 
you  whether  the  Irish  people  have  the  full  benefit  of  the 
Constitution  which  has  been  established  in  England  ?  It  is  a 
strange  circumstance  that  the  progress  of  Liberal  opinions  lead 
to  this  divergence  between  the  English  and  the  Irish  franchises. 
Formerly  they  were  the  same  in  both  countries,  but  shortly 
after  the  passing  of  Catholic  Emancipation  the  40/  free- 
holders were  abolished,  and  by  the  Reform  Act  the  fran- 
chise in  Ireland  was  made  higher  than  in  England.  There  is 
also  a  difference  between  the  municipal  franchises  in  the  two 
countries.  In  Ireland — the  poorer  country,  be  it  remembered 
— a  man  cannot  take  part  in  a  municipal  election  unless  he 
occupies  a  house  worth  ^10  a  year  ;  but  in  England  every 
householder  has  a  right  to  vote.  Again,  how  are  fiscal  affairs 
managed  in  Ireland  ?  A  Grand  Jury  is  summoned  in  every 
county  for  the  purpose  of  finding  bills  and  discharging  the 
criminal  administration  of  justice,  and  the  members  of  this 
body,  who  are  not  elected  by  the  people,  are  made  the  guard- 
ians of  the  whole  county  expenditure,  which  amounts  through- 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

out  the  whole  of  Ireland  to  ^1,200,000  a  year.     In  fact,  the 
em  of  Government  in   Ireland  is  based  on  distrust 
f  the  people,  just  as  the  whole  system   of  Government   in 
based  upon  trust  of  the  people. 
lis  circumstance,    I  think,  justifies  the  complaint  of  the 
e  of  Ireland  that  they  have  not  the  benefit  of  the  Con- 
don.    In  accordance  with  an  old  principle  of  the  British 
ition,  sheriffs  in  all  towns  are  elected  by  the  people, 
is   the   case   in    Ireland   until    Liberal  legislation 
:  med  the  corporations,  and  took  from  them  this  power  of 
ing  sheriffs.     Do  not  the  facts  I  have  mentioned  justify 
in  asking  the  House  to  recede  from  its  policy  of  coercion 
The  conclusion  has  been  reluctantly  forced 
upon  me,  that  conceding  to  Ireland  a  Parliament  to  manage  its 
affairs  is  the  only  way  to  establish  a  perfect  Constitutional 
emment  in  that  country.     I  am  persuaded  that  any  candid 
1  nan  who  will  examine  the  peculiar  condition  of  Ireland, 

the  differences  which  exist  between  Ireland  and  England, 
will  arrive,  as  I  have  done,  at  the  conclusion  that  the  only  way 
iave  a   really  Constitutional  Government  in   Ireland  is  to 
allow  the  representatives  of  the  people,  freely  chosen  by  the 
to  administer  their  own  affairs.     However,  the  Amend- 
l   I  am  about  to  move  does  not  express  any  opinion   on 
i  point.       All  I  now  ask  the  House  to  say  is  that  Ireland 
not  the  benefit  of  the  Constitution,  and   to    consider    a 
Amendment  ought  to  commend  itself  to  the 
mmi   sense  and   candour  of  English  gentlemen.     A  new 
of   things   lias  arisen    in    Ireland,    and    an    opportunity 
to    the    House    of   Commons    to    review   its 
id   to  that   country.      I  do  not  at  present  ask 
Home  Rule  to  Ireland.     That  question 
discussed,   and    perhaps   to   be   discussed  for 
Hut   fust   the  advocates  of  Home   Rule   must 
p  ople  that  they  arc  not  seeking  separation. 
given  up  the  idea  of  separation,  because  she  has 
•1  obtaining  another  and  a  far  better 
p>t  believe  Ireland  will  ever  be  content  with  the 


Isaac  Butt  on  Home  Rule.  1 7  1 

existing  state  of  things  ;  but  if  Englishmen  approach  the  sub- 
ject with  unprejudiced  minds,  there  will  be  no  difficulty  in 
framing  a  measure  which  will  make  Ireland  contented,  while 
the  integrity  of  the  Empire  will  be  perfectly  maintained. 

We  are  now  entering  upon  a  new  phase  of  Irish  politics. 
It  is  not  my  wish  to  say  one  word  of  disrespect  towards  the 
right  hon.  gentleman  opposite  (Mr  Disraeli),  who  by  his  genius 
has  raised  himself  to  the  exalted  position  he  at  present  occu- 
pies. The  right  hon.  gentleman  is  now  for  the  first  time  in 
his  life  in  power,  although  he  has  previously  been  in  office. 
Ireland  is  a  field  large  enough  for  the  ambition  of  any  man  if 
he  can  reconcile  that  country  cordially  to  the  British  nation, 
and  dispel  every  trace  of  disloyalty  to  the  British  Crown.  I 
believe  it  is  possible  to  do  this  by  wise  legislation.  There  may 
be  a  veiled  policy  as  well  as  a  veiled  rebellion.  It  will  be  a 
mistake,  however,  if  the  right  hon.  gentleman  conceives  that 
other  questions  will  not  have  to  be  dealt  with.  If  a  policy  of 
conciliation  is  pursued  towards  Ireland,  the  right  hon.  gentle- 
man will  not  find  himself  obstructed  by  Irish  representatives ; 
but  if  he  unfortunately  pursues  a  different  course,  he  will  find 
himself  disappointed.  But  however  great  our  wish  to  relieve 
the  House  of  Commons  from  the  management  of  exclusively 
Irish  affairs,  for  which  we  believe  the  House  unfit,  while  these 
affairs  are  managed  in  the  House,  and  we  continue  members 
of  it,  a  duty  devolves  upon  us  which  will  be  discharged  by 
offering  factious  opposition  to  any  measures  for  the  benefit  of 
Ireland,  from  whichever  side  of  the  House  such  measures  may 
emanate. 

I  think  I  have  shown  that  a  crisis  has  arisen  in  the  affairs 
of  Ireland  presenting  new  phases ;  that  those  gentlemen  who 
have  associated  themselves  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  self- 
government  for  Ireland  are  bound  not  to  acquiesce  in  an 
Address  which  infers  that  things  shall  remain  as  they  are  ;  and 
it  is  with  this  view  that  I  now  place  in  the  hands  of  the  Speaker 
the  Amendment  which  I  have  prepared. 


A.    M.    SULLIVAN    ON    THE    IRISH 
NATIONAL    DEMANDS. 

House  of  Commons,  January  17TH,  1878. 

;»eningof  Parliament  the  Home  Rule  Members  took  exception 
Speech  on  the  ground  that  it  contained   no  reference  to 
awls  for  Home  Rule.     They  therefore  proposed  an  Amend- 
•rted  in  the  Address  in  these  words:—"  We  humbly  assure 
at   we  shall  regard  it  as  the  duty  of  Parliament,   in  the 
■  public  affairs,  on  the  earliest  opportunity,  to  consider 
iciliatory  spirit  the  National   Demands  which  the  Irish 
Ltedly  rai  To  speak  against  this  Amendment  the 

in  up  Mr  David  1'lunket,  the  Member  for  Dublin  University, 
:   Lord   Plunket  who  in  the  Irish  Parliament  had  most 
11I   denounced   the  Act   of   Union,    and    who    had 
no  was  passed,  he  would,   like  another  Han- 
children  to  the  altar  of  his  country,  and  i here  swear  them 
miiy  against  the  power  which  had  so  basely  wronged  their 

stands  indebted  to  the  hon.  and  gallant  gentle- 

iber  f(  irWaterford.  His  motion  has  broken  "thecold 

'  thai  hung  over  ihe  Government  benches,  and 

)  the  lion,  and  learned  gentleman  (Mr  Plunket) 

:h,  whatever  its  other  characteristics,  we  have  all 

ied  play  of  humour,  eloquence,  and  ability. 

1  to  to  the  House  for  the  time  he  was 

the  business,  and  this  of  all  others  the 

e  lime  of  the  House  should  most,  rigidly 

Parliament   has   been    assembled  three  weeks 


A.  M.  Sullivan  on  I  risk  National  Demands,   i  7$ 

earlier  than  usual,  and  within  these  three  weeks  there  should 
be  good  time  for  discussing  and  considering  the  Irish  question 
— for  fully  considered  and  discussed  we  are  fixedly  determined 
it  shall  be.  Mr  Speaker,  that  hon.  and  learned  gentleman  said 
of  the  men  amidst  whom  I  stand  that  they  were  "  masquerading 
as  Home  Rulers."  The  phrase  is  not  offensive,  I  suppose,  or 
he  would  not  have  applied  it ;  so  I  may  use  it  too,  and  say 
that  the  thing  which  is  really  intolerable  is  to  see  the  grandson 
of  the  great  Plunket  masquerading  on  the  floor  of  the  House 
as  an  Imperialist.  We  are  supposed  to  be  concerned  just  now 
with  the  Turkish  question.  One  of  the  crudest  wrongs  which 
the  subject  Christians  under  the  Moslem  yoke  were  made  to 
feel  was  that  oftentimes  the  children  of  Christian  parents  were 
seized  and  carried  into  the  Turkish  camp,  trained  up  in  Turkish 
ideas,  embraced  the  faith  and  the  banner  of  the  conqueror,  and 
appeared  many  a  time,  scimitar  in  Land,  to  wage  war  upon 
their  kindred  and  their  race  !  Even  so  it  has  been  with  us  in 
Ireland  through  many  a  sad  chapter  of  our  country's  history. 
Sometimes  by  force,  sometimes  by  guile,  sometimes  by  one 
influence,  sometimes  by  another,  the  British  power  has  been 
able  to  tear  away  from  us  children  who  bore  great  names,  and 
might  have  greatly  served  their  country  ;  and  we  have  seen 
these  converts,  as  to-night,  skilfully  set  in  the  fore-front  of  the 
assault  when  their  countrymen  were  to  be  cut  down. 

Who  is  our  accuser  ?  The  voice  is  the  voice  of  an  Irishman  ; 
the  wit,  the  ability,  the  brilliant  play  of  fancy  and  of  genius,  the 
rhetoric,  the  skill — all,  all  are  Irish,  but  all  are  used  against 
Ireland!  Who,  I  repeat,  is  our  accuser?  If  we  stand  here 
to-night,  as  we  do,  upon  the  floor  of  this  House  to  maintain  in 
the  face  of  the  Empire  and  of  Europe  the  protest  of  Ireland 
against  the  memorable  crime  that  robbed  her  of  her  Constitu- 
tional liberties,  whose  behests  are  we  fulfilling  ? — who  pledged 
us  to  undying  hate  and  eternal  war  against  the  crime  ?  The 
hon.  and  learned  gentleman  had  the  temerity  to  use  a  phrase 
for  ever  notable  in  the  history  of  his  family  when  he  spoke  of 
men  "  swearing  upon  the  altar."     Who  was  that  great  Irish- 


M  Political  Orations. 

d  Constitutional  lawyer,  who  declared 

Parliament  were  successfully  overthrown  he 

ild— oh,  why  did  he  not  say  his  grandchild  ? 

lira  upon  the  altar  of  his  country  to  wage  relent- 

iat  tremendous  wrong?     How  little  did  he 

our  that  to-night  the  representatives  of  Ireland 

r  in  the  ranks  of  their  Imperial  adversaries  the 

.  and  in  no  small  degree  of  his  genius, 

ciples  and  his  teachings,  false  to  his  lineage  and 

.  1  turn  from  the  man  to  his  arguments.     He  drew 
f  Ireland.      Many  years  ago  O'Connell  was 
In  his  speech  to  the  Jury  he  drew  a 
litre  of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  as  a  model  husband 
he  was   not   married   at   all),    a   dutiful   son,   an 
n,  virtuous,  pious,  industrious,  inoffensive.     At 
ibner  in  the  dock  could  stand  it  no  longer,  and 
!  to  those  around  him,  "  I  never  knew  before  that 
Well,  Sir,  we  have  heard  to-night 
British  rule  in  Ireland  extolling  the  virtues  and 
lient  ;  and  well  may  the  prisoner  at  the  bar 
■  laim,  "  I   never  knew    1    was  so  beautiful,  so 
•US  as  all  that.''     Only  believe  the  hot),  and 
there   is  not   the   slightest   need   of 
the   slightest    possibility   of    improving 
in    Ireland       I      rything   there  is  already   perfect 
nt,  law,  ami  administration.      There 
m   <     fortunate  spot  on  the  face  of 
It     is    the    home    of    happiness,    peace, 
t   rule   ami    abounding    loyalty.      Hon. 
You  evidently  think  so  too.     You 
now    In  land  better  than  we  do.  '  You 
it   than   we.   tin-    Irish   majority, 
iv,  by  what  right  does  your  party  hold 
I  *  nl*-  the  di  itinies  of  England  but  by  the 
In  virtue  of  a  Parliamentary 

entitled    to   speak    to   the   world    for 


A.  M.  Sullivan  on  Irish  National  Demands. 


/  o 


England,  while  in  virtue  of  a  Parliamentary  minority  you  would 
claim  to  speak  for  Ireland. 

But,  Sir,  the  question  before  the  House  is  much  wider,  and 
greater,  and  more  serious  than  the  merits  of  the  Irish  "  Bills  " 
which  the  Government  has  promised.  If  it  were  a  matter  of 
a  better  or  a  worse  Grand  Jury  Law,  or  a  better  or  a  worse 
Intermediate  Education  Bill,  I,  for  one,  should  hesitate  to  con- 
cur in  an  interposition  like  the  present.  The  question  we  raise 
is  that  for  which  it  may  be  said  Parliament  has  been  specially 
convoked.  We  have  been  told  in  the  Royal  Speech  of  a 
possible  danger  near  at  hand,  of  precautions  and  preparations 
that  may  be  necessary  for  the  defence  of  the  power  and 
stability  of  the  Empire.  Well,  we  have  come  forward  to 
suggest  the  wisest  precaution  and  the  most  potential  prepara- 
tion which  the  Government  could  make.  The  matter  is  glossed 
over  by  smooth  phrases,  but  the  danger  that  you  all  mean  is 
war — a  war  in  which  England  will  have  to  fight  for  her  very 
existence  as  a  nation.  If  that  war  break  out,  if  it  be  not 
averted,  as  I  hope  it  may  be,  England  will  find  herself  in  such 
desperate  strait  as  she  has  not  known  for  four  hundred  years. 
Your  army,  small,  but  brave  and  fearless  as  ever,  will  behave 
with  its  traditional  valour ;  wherever  it  may  be  sent,  on  what- 
ever field  it  may  fight,  the  army  of  this  country  will  exhibit 
those  splendid  qualities  that  have  justly  given  it  a  world-wide 
fame.  I  would  say  as  much  for  it,  even  were  it  not  composed 
as  largely  as  it  is  of  my  own  brave  countrymen.  But  there  is 
not  a  military  man  sitting  in  this  House  who  does  not  know 
and  feel  the  truth  of  what  I  say — that  a  recent  memorable  war 
in  Europe  has  demonstrated  that  courage  and  prestige  no 
longer  compensate  as  largely  as  they  used  to  do  sixty  years  ago 
against  overwhelming  odds ;  and  that  your  army  of  a  hundred 
thousand,  or  a  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  men,  would  be 
utterly  powerless  before  the  hosts  that  now  stand  arrayed  and 
disciplined  on  the  Continent  of  Europe.  Should  this  calamity 
befall,  should  this  trouble  for  your  existence  arise,  think  you 
that  it  is  upon  inanimate  sword  and  bayonet,  and  ship  and  gun, 


J.  Political  Orations. 

i  stalwart  arms  and  patriotic  enthusiasm,  your 

Should  that  crisis  come,  right  sure  am  I 

lish  masses  a  patriotic  fervour  will  answer  to 

gland  and  throughout  Scotland  it  will 

ilreland?    In  the  spirit  of  the  oath  which 

-nay,  higher  obligations  still,  by  the  duty  I 

and  to  truth— I  dare  all  misconception  and 

this  momentous  crisis  my  solemn  testimony 

Empire  enters  upon  a  struggle  of  such 

while   Ireland  is   in   the  attitude  which  Hungary 

rds    Austria   previous   to  Sadowa,   the   popular 

i  which  you  will  receive  in   England  and  Scotland 

pou  in  Ireland.      [Cries  of  "Oh  !  oh  !  "J 

your  exclamations,  and  I  do  not  complain  j 

■  it   I   have   made   is   serious,   and  naturally  un- 

e  will  vindicate  the  truth  of  my  words  and  the 

my  moti 

wenty-five  years  ago  there  stood  upon  the  floor 

i    of  Irish    members,   struggling,    as    we 

you   to   listen    to   Irish    demands. 

5  what  was  their  fate  ;  read  for  yourselves 

I   that  time.      They   were   voted  down,  they  were 

laughed  at,  they  were  denounced  or 

ed.      •  1   in  that  day — as   you  always  have — some 

a  Irishman  in  your  service  to  get  up  and  do 

i   luntrymen  —to  contradict  their  testi- 

..    nit  tidings  which  you  hailed  as  gospel 

:  hun    t  warnings  of  danger  were  shrieked  against 

.     John    Francis    Maguire   and   others 

House,  is   I    >ay  now,  that  there  was 

on    m    Ireland.       They    were    set    upon 

I  were  contradicted  and  con- 

Hou  «,  by  overwhelming  vol  lared  their 

nd  that  Ireland  was  peaceable,  contented, 

M  ii  in'  two  barely  passed  when 

:  on  .ill  this.      At   that  very  moment 


A.  M.  Sullivan  on  Irish  National  Demands.   177 

my  unfortunate  countrymen  were  being  sworn  in  by  the  thousand 
in  a  secret  conspiracy  for  armed  insurrection.  Barely  a  few  years 
passed  away  when  the  crowded  dock,  the  convict  ship,  the  penal 
gang,  the  triangle,  and  the  bloody  lash — nay,  the  scaffold  itself 
—  furnished  a  frightful  contradiction  to  the  pleasant  testimonies 
which  you  preferred  to  believe ;  a  frightful  corroboration  to  the 
warnings  you  denounced  and  despised.  What  happened  then  ? 
Like  the  story  of  the  recent  Fenian  amnesty  which  we  have 
heard  to-night,  measures  prayed  for  in  vain  in  the  hour  of  your 
tranquillity,  when  concession  would  have  grace  and  efficacy, 
were  conceded  amidst  public  disquietude  and  almost  panic. 
Writing  some  six  weeks  ago  to  a  friend  in  the  north  of  England 
■ — a  fair-minded,  a  kindly- hearted,  and  a  high -principled 
Englishman — yes,  I  believe  in  the  existence  of  such  men,  not 
in  scores  or  hundreds,  but  in  hundreds  of  thousands — I  com- 
plained of  this,  and  asked  how  and  why  it  was  that  English 
statesmen  and  politicians  should  thus  put  a  premium  on 
turbulence  and  revolt. 

Just  look  what  has  been  the  history  of  any  great  political 
measure  passed  for  Ireland  in  our  own  generation.  The 
argument  of  Catholic  Emancipation  was  exhausted  in  1801. 
Its  justice  was  as  patent  to  all  men  in  181 2  as  at  any  time 
afterwards ;  yet  it  was  resisted  and  refused  until,  as  the  Duke 
of  Wellington  declared,  civil  war  seemed  inevitable.  Was  not 
that  a  mischievous  lesson  to  Irishmen  ?  The  Tithe  Question 
you  resisted  until  our  land  was  reddened  with  blood.  The 
Church  Question  and  the  Land  Question— it  is  a  story  ol 
recent  years.  A  Land  Bill  was  passed  in  1870,  after  passions 
had  been  aroused,  hearts  broken,  homes  desolated  by  the 
thousand ;  after  you  had  filled  America  with  combustible 
elements  that  are  at  this  moment  a  serious  menace  to  England. 
In  that  struggle  you  broke  the  heart  of  Lucas,  and  drove 
Gavan  Duffy  into  exile — robbed  Ireland  of  the  services  ol 
a  man  whose  genius  and  worth  you  have  been  glad  tc 
recognise  at  the  Antipodes.  The  Land  Bill,  prayed  foi 
in  T850,  was  granted  in  part  in  1870,  after  the  terrihle  tragedy 

M 


Modem  Political  Orations. 

of    Ball;  had    startled    the    Empire.      In     1868    you 

.  /threw  the  Irish  Church,  because,  as  you  avowed, 
i  enianism.     In  the  face  of  the  men  whose 
.  had  angrily  resented   a   few  years   previously, 
this  House  to  concede  in  an  hour  of  alarm 
refused  in  the   time  of  tranquillity.      Is  this 
true  or  false?      Am  I,  or  am  I  not,  reciting  facts 
all?     What  do  these  facts  show?     That,  by 
;  malign  fatality,  some  calamitous  coincidence,  if  nothing 
at  men,  like  my  colleague  and  myself,   who 
.    ,1   to  be  just  in  time.     You    resist   concession  in 
1  aim,  and  yield  it  only  in  the  face  of  real  or  fancied 
If  it  be  not  so,  let  some  one  get  up  to-night,  and  name 
.it  national  concession  made  to   Ireland  under 
instances.     As  it  has  been,  perhaps  it  is  still 
You  will  complain  of  my  words;  you  will  say  I  do 
n   hut   threaten,  and  you  will  prefer   to  believe  those 
:  the  Irish  masses  are  contented  and  well-affected, 
ally  ready  as  Englishmen  could  be  to  pour  out 
Mi  your  defence  ;  hut   I   dare  all  risk  of  temporary 
and  blame. 
I    look    into   the  future,  and  can  await  my  vindication.     Do 
■  mistake  our  position  in  this  crisis  of  the  Empire. 
1  many  members  of  a  party  or  a  section  of  this 

any  advocates  of  this  or  that  Bill. 

national  representation  of  Ireland,  here  in  over- 

to  demand  the  restoration  of  Parliamentary 

istitutional  Government.     We  are  projecting  no 

al,  lik--  the  friends  of  this  or  that  great  reform  or 

are  here  to  call  for  the  restitution  of  what 

d,  but  which  you  wrung  from  us  by 

■Id    to    vitiate    and    render    illegal    every    public 

1     man     and    man,    between     nation    and 

'1  ;  no  title  to  it  :  for  no  time  runs 

•  1  and  renewed,  as  ours  has  been,  from 

legally   we   stand   to  day  where  we 


A.  M.  Stillivan  on  Irish  National  Demands.   179 

stood  seventy  years  ago.  Restore  to  Ireland  the  reign  of  law  ! 
It  is  all  she  asks  as  the  price  of  her  friendship — a  price  cheap 
indeed,  for  it  takes  nothing  from  you  that  belongs  to  you. 
The  price  of  her  friendship  !  You  are  now,  in  view  of  a 
terrible  emergency,  possibly  at  hand,  searching  Europe 
through  for  allies.  Here  we  are  to-night  empowered  to  offer 
you  one  worth  the  best  you  could  elsewhere  find — the  alliance, 
the  hearty  friendship,  the  enthusiastic  support  of  Ireland.  I 
own  I  have  deep  reason  to  wish  this  question  settled,  and  to  see 
a  cordial  feeling  established  between  the  two  countries  before 
dark  clouds  grow  darker,  and  while  yet  the  reconciliation  can  be 
free  and  generous  and  efficacious.  The  peace,  the  happiness, 
the  tranquillity  of  Ireland  are  most  dear  to  me ;  and  I  do  not 
wish  to  see  my  country  desolated  and  destroyed  by  being  made, 
perhaps,  a  battle-field  of  the  coming  struggle.  I  do  not  want 
the  ghastly  episode  of  some  Continental  despot  making  what 
he  would  call  a  diversion  in  Ireland — wasting  the  blood  and 
blasting  the  hopes  of  my  country  in  a  mere  stroke  of  tactics  to 
serve  his  own  ends.  I  shudder  when  I  think  of  such  a 
possibility  ;  and  I  appeal  to  you — yes,  unchilled  by  the  fore- 
gone conclusion  of  your  unwise  refusal— I  nevertheless  raise 
and  record  my  appeal  to  you  and  the  English  nation  to-night 
to  let  us  clasp  hands  in  friendship  on  the  only  terms  on  which 
we  can  be  allies  or  friends.  Be  simply  just.  That  you  will 
do  so  yet,  despite  your  customary  refusals  now,  I  am  as 
convinced  as  I  am  of  my  own  existence.  It  is  the  time 
which,  with  your  customary  unwisdom,  you  may  select  for 
such  a  step  that  alone  disquiets  me.  Austria  tried  your 
present  policy  towards  Hungary,  and  changed  it  after  Sadowa. 
I  hope  and  pray  you  will  wait  for  no  such  hour  to  accept  the 
proffered   hand   and   secure  the  ready  aid  of  the  brave  and 

gallant  Irish  nation. 
/ 


THE    EARL   OF    BEACONSFIELD   ON 
THE    BERLIN    CONGRESS. 

Carlton  Club  Banquet,  July  27TH,  1878. 

.eturn  from  the  Berlin  Congress,   Lord  Beaconsfield  was  at 

mit  of  his  popularity.     Enthusiastic  crowds  cheered  his  progress 

the  Foreign  Office,  from  one  of  the  windows  of  which 

1  the  multitude,  saying,  "  I  have  brought  you  peace,  but  I  trust, 

These    words    became    memorable.       The  speech, 

,11  at  the  Carlton  Club  Banquet  in  the  Duke  of  Wellington's 

Knightsbridge— the  largest   available   hall   in   the   West 

pmeiit  of  that  brief  address  to  the  people.     The  Duke 

iccupied  the  Chair.] 

Mv  '  .1.  and  Gentlemen, — I  am  sure  that  you  will 

nit    me   of  affectation   if  I    say    that    it    is    not   without 

1    have  received   this  expression  of  your  good- 

sympathy.     When    I    look   around    this    chamber    I 

of  some   who   entered   public  life  with  myself, 

friend  the  noble  Duke  has  reminded  me,  more 

I  more  whose  entrance  into  public 

ed   when   I   had  myself  gained  some  experience 

md  lastly,    I   see  those  who  have  only  recently  entered 

and   whom   it  has  been   my  duty  and  my 

and  to  counsel   when   they  entered  that 

0  characteristic  of  this  country,  and  which  is 

rities  of  our  liberty  and  welfare. 
..I  Gentlemen,  our  Chairman  has  referred  to  my 
if  all    |Hil>li<-    nun    in    this  country,    as  one 
ide  ;  but   1   have  been  sustained,  even 


Lord  Beacons  fie  Id  on  the  Berlin  Congress.    18 1 

in  the  darkest  hours  of  our  party,  by  the  conviction  that  I 
possessed  your  confidence,  I  will  say  your  indulgent  confid- 
ence ;  for  in  the  long  course  of  my  public  life,  that  I  may 
have  committed  many  mistakes  is  too  obvious  a  truth  to 
touch  upon  ;  but  that  you  have  been  indulgent  there  is  no 
doubt,  for  I  can,  I  hope,  I  may  say  proudly,  remember 
that  it  has  been  my  lot  to  lead  in  either  House  of  Parlia- 
ment this  great  party  for  a  longer  period  than  has  ever 
fallen  to  the  lot  of  any  public  man  in  the  history  of  this 
country.  That  I  have  owed  that  result  to  your  generous 
indulgence  more  than  to  any  personal  qualities  of  my  own 
no  man  is  more  sensible  than  myself;  but  it  is  a  fact  that 
I  may  recur  to  with  some  degree  of  proud  satisfaction.  Our 
noble  Chairman  has  referred  to  the  particular  occasion  which 
has  made  me  your  guest  to-day.  I  attended  that  high 
assembly  which  has  recently  dispersed  with  much  reluctance. 
I  yielded  to  the  earnest  solicitations  of  my  noble  friend 
near  me  (the  Marquis  of  Salisbury),  my  colleague  in  that 
great  enterprise.  He  thought  that  my  presence  might  be  of 
use  to  him  in  the  vast  difficulties  he  had  to  encounter  ;  but  I 
must  say  now,  as  I  shall  ever  say,  that  to  his  lot  fell  the 
labouring  oar  in  that  great  work,  and  that  you  are,  I  will  not 
say  equally,  but  more  indebted  to  him  than  to  myself  for  the 
satisfactory  results  which  you  kindly  recognise.  I  share  the 
conviction  of  our  noble  Chairman  that  it  is  one  which  has  been 
received  with  satisfaction  by  the  country,  but  I  am  perfectly 
aware  that  that  satisfaction  is  not  complete  or  unanimous, 
because  I  know  well  that  before  eight-and-forty  hours  have 
passed  the  marshalled  hosts  of  opposition  will  be  prepared 
to  challenge  what  has  been  done,  and  to  question  the  policy 
we  hope  we  have  established. 

My  Lords  and  Gentlemen,  as  I  can  no  longer  raise  my 
voice  in  that  House  of  Parliament  where  this  contest  is  to 
take  place,  as  I  sit  now  in  a  House  where  our  opponents 
never  unsheath  their  swords,  a  House  where,  although  the 
two  chief  plenipotentiaries  of  the  Queen  sit,  they  are  met  only 


1 82  Modern  Political  Orations. 

by  innuendo  and  by  question,  I  hope  you  will  permit  me, 
though  with  extreme  brevity,  to  touch  on  one  or  two  of  the 
point's  which  in  a  few  hours  may  much  engage  the  interest 
and  attention  of  the  Parliament.  My  Lords  and  Gentlemen, 
it  is  difficult  to  describe  the  exact  meaning  of  the  charge 
which  is  brought  against  the  plenipotentiaries  of  the  Queen, 
as  it  will  be  introduced  to  the  House  of  Commons  on 
Monday.  Drawn  as  it  is,  it  appears  at  first  sight  to  be  only 
a  series' of  congratulatory  regrets.  But,  my  Lords  and  Gentle- 
men, if  you  penetrate  the  meaning  of  this  movement,  it 
would  appear  that  there  are  two  points  in  which  it  is  hoped 
that  a  successful  onset  may  be  made  on  Her  Majesty's 
Government,  and  on  those  two  points,  and  those  alone,  I 
hope  with  becoming  brevity,  at  this  moment,  perhaps,  you 
will  allow  me  to  make  one  or  two  remarks.  It  is  charged 
against  Her  Majesty's  Government  that  they  have  particularly 
deceived  and  deserted  Greece. 

Now,  my  Lords  and  Gentlemen,  this  is  a  subject  which  is, 
1  think,   capable  of  simpler   treatment   than    hitherto   it  has 
encountered   in    public   discussion.       We   have   given   at   all 
times,  in  public  and  in  private,  to  the  Government  of  Greece 
and  to  all  who  might  influence  its  decisions  but  one  advice — 
that  on  no  account  should   they  be  induced  to  interfere  in 
those  coming  disturbances  which  two  years    ago   threatened 
Europe,  and  which  concluded  in  a  devastating  war.     And  we 
Lve   that   advice   on    these   grounds,    which   appear    to    me 
incontestable.     If,  as  Greece   supposed,  and   as   we   thought 
erroneously  supposed,  the  partition  of  the  Ottoman  Empire 
was  at  hand,  Greece,  morally,  geographically,  ethnographically, 
was    sure    of    receiving    a    considerable    allotment    of    that 
partition  when  it  took  place.     It  would  be  impossible  to  make 
re  settlement    of    the    East    of    Europe    without    largely 
fying  the  claims  of  (Greece;  and  great   as    those   claims 
•   be,  if  that  were  the  case,  it  was  surely  unwise  in  Greece 
•  and  its  blood.      If,  on  the  other  hand,  as 
Her   Majesty's  Government  believed,  the  end  of  this  struggle 


Lord  Beaconsjield  on  the  Berlin  Congress.    183 

would  not  be  a  partition  of  the  Ottoman  Empire,  but  that  the 
wisdom  and  experience  of  all  the  Powers  and  Governments 
would  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  existence  and  strengthen- 
ing of  the  Ottoman  Government  was  necessary  to  the  peace 
of  Europe,  and  without  it  long  and  sanguinary  and  intermitting 
struggles  must  inevitably  take  place,  it  was  equally  clear  to  us 
that  when  the  settlement  occurred,  all  those  rebellious 
tributary  principalities  that  have  lavished  their  best  blood 
and  embarrassed  their  finances  for  generations  would  neces- 
sarily be  but  scurvily  treated,  and  that  Greece,  even  under  this 
alternative,  would  find  that  she  was  wise  in  following  the 
advice  of  England  and  not  mixing  in  a  fray  so  fatal.  Well, 
my  Lords  and  Gentlemen,  has  not  the  event  proved  the  justice 
and  accuracy  of  that  view  ?  At  this  moment,  though  Greece 
has  not  interfered,  fortunately  for  herself — though  she  has  not 
lavished  the  blood  of  her  citizens  and  wasted  her  treasure, 
under  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  she  has  the  opportunity  of  obtain- 
ing a  greater  increase  of  territory  than  will  be  obtained  by  any 
of  the  rebellious  principalities  that  have  lavished  their  blood 
and  wasted  their  resources  in  this  fierce  contest.  I  should 
like  to  see  that  view  answered  by  those  who  accuse  us  of 
misleading  Greece.  We  gave  to  her  the  best  advice  ;  fortun- 
ately for  Greece  she  followed  it,  and  I  will  hope  that,  follow- 
ing it  with  discretion  and  moderation,  she  will  not  lose  the 
opportunity  we  have  secured  for  her  in  the  advantages  she 
may  yet  reap. 

I  would  make  one  more  remark  on  this  subject,  which  will 
soon  occupy  the  attention  of  many  who  are  here  present. 
It  has  been  said  we  have  misled  and  deserted  Greece,  because 
we  were  the  Power  which  took  steps  that  Greece  should 
be  heard  before  the  Congress.  Why  did  we  do  that  ? 
Because  we  have  ever  expressed  our  opinion  that  in  the 
elevation  of  the  Greek  race — not  merely  the  subjects  of  the 
King  of  Greece — one  of  the  best  chances  of  the  improvement 
of  Society  under  the  Ottoman  rule  would  be  found,  and  that  it 
was  expedient  that  the  rights  of  the  Greek  race  should    be 


Modem  Political  Orations. 

rated  by  that  portion  of  it  which  enjoyed  an  independent 
:  and  all  this  time,  too,  let  it  be  recollected 
my  noble  friend  was  unceasing  in  his  efforts  to  obtain 
such  a  settlement  of  the  claims,  or  rather,  I  should  say,  the 
with  the  Porte,  as  would  conduce  greatly  to 
itage  of  that  kingdom.     And   not   without   success, 
ition  of  Lord  Salisbury  for  the  rectification  of  the 
Greece   really   includes    all    that   moderate   and 
iible   men    could    desire;    and   that   was   the    plan    that 
timately  was  adopted  by  the  Congress,  and  which  Greece 
it  avail  herself  of  if  there  be  prudence  and  moderation 
in    her    councils.      Let   me   here   make   one   remark — which 
indeed  is  one  that  applies  to  other  most  interesting  portions 
at  question;  it  refers  to  the  personal  character  of 
the  Sultan.     From  the  first  the  Sultan  of  Turkey  has  expressed 
[lis  desire  to  deal  with  Greece  in  a  spirit  of  friendliness  and 
iliation.      He  has  been  perfectly  aware  that  in  the  union 
the  Turkish  and  Greek  races   the  only  balance  could  be 
ined  and  secured  against  the  Pan-Slavic  monopoly  which 
t    invading   the  whole   of  his   dominions.     Therefore 
there  w  ry  disposition  on  his  part  to  meet  the  proposals 

ish  Government  with  favour,  and  he  did  meet  them 
with  favour.     Remember  the  position  of  that  Prince.     It  is 
ost  unprecedented.     No  prince,  probably,  that  ever  lived 
h  such  a  series  of  catastrophes.      One  of  his 
ommits  suicide;  his  immediate  predecessor  is 
a  visitation  more  awful  even    than   suicide.     The 
ends  the  throne  his  Ministers  are  assassinated. 
out  in  his  own  palace,  and  then  he  learns 
invaded;   his   armies,   however   valiant, 
id  that  the  enemy  is  at  his  gates;  yet,  with  all 
'   during  all  this  period,  he  has  never  swerved 
and   1  believe  the  feeling,  of  a  desire  to  deal 
spiril  tdship.     Well,  what  happened? — 

expression  of  feeling  on   his   part?     He 
<  a   man   whose  every  impulse  is  good;  however 


Lord  Beaconsfield  on  the  Berlin  Congress.    185 

great  the  difficulties  he  has  to  encounter,  however  evil  the 
influences  that  may  sometimes  control  him,  his  impulses  are 
good  ;  and  where  impulses  are  good  there  is  always  hope.  He 
is  not  a  tyrant— he  is  not  dissolute — he  is  not  a  bigot,  or 
corrupt.  What  was  his  last  decision?  When  my  noble 
friend,  not  encouraged,  I  must  say,  by  Greece,  but  still 
continuing  his  efforts,  endeavoured  to  bring  to  some  practical 
result  this  question  of  the  frontiers,  the  Sultan  said  that  what 
he  was  prepared  to  do  he  wished  should  be  looked  on  as  an 
act  of  grace  on  his  part,  and  of  the  sense  of  the  friendliness  of 
Greece  in  not  attacking  him  during  his  troubles ;  but  as 
a  Congress  was  now  to  meet,  he  should  like  to  hear  the  result 
of  the  wisdom  of  the  Congress  on  the  subject.  The  Congress 
has  now  spoken  ;  and  though  it  declared  that  it  did  not  feel 
justified  in  compelling  the  Sultan  to  adopt  the  steps  it  might 
think  advantageous  even  for  its  own  interests,  the  Congress 
expressed  an  opinion  which,  I  doubt  not,  the  Sultan  is 
prepared  to  consider  in  the  spirit  of  conciliation  he  has  so 
often  displayed.  And  this  is  the  moment  when  a  party 
for  factious  purposes,  and  a  party  unhappily  not  limited 
to  England,  is  egging  on  Greece  to  violent  courses !  I  may, 
perhaps,  have  touched  at  too  much  length  on  this  topic ;  but 
the  attacks  made  on  Her  Majesty's  Government  are  nothing 
compared  with  the  public  mischief  that  may  occur  if  mis- 
conception exists  on  this  point. 

There  is  one  other  point  on  which  I  would  make  a  remark, 
and  that  is  with  regard  to  the  Convention  of  Constantinople  of 
the  4th  of  June.  When  I  study  the  catalogue  of  congratulatory 
regrets  with  attention,  this  appears  to  be  the  ground  on  which 
a  great  assault  is  to  be  made  on  the  Government.  It  is  said 
that  we  have  increased,  and  dangerously  increased,  our  re- 
sponsibilities by  that  Convention.  In  the  first  place,  I  deny 
that  we  have  increased  our  responsibilities  by  that  Convention. 
I  maintain  that  by  that  Convention  we  have  lessened  our 
responsibilities.  Suppose  now,  for  example,  the  settlement  of 
Europe  had  not  included  the  Convention  of  Constantinople, 


Modem  Political  Orations. 

ad  the  occupation  of  the  Isle  of  Cyprus?     Suppose  it  had 

limited  to  the  mere  Treaty  of  Berlin,  what,   under  all 

able  circumstances,  might  then  have  occurred?     In  ten, 

n,  it  might  be  in  twenty  years,  the  power  and  resources  of 

Russia  having  revived,  some  quarrel  would  again  have  occurred, 

garian  or  otherwise,  and  in  all  probability  the  armies  of 

5ia  would  have  been  assailing  the  Ottoman  dominions  both 

in  Europe  and  Asia,  and  enveloping  and  enclosing  the  city 

of  Constantinople   and    its  all-powerful  position.     Well,  what 

would  be  the  probable  conduct,  under  these  circumstances,  of 

the  Government  of  this  country,  whoever  the  Ministers  might 

be— whatever  party  might  be  in  power?     I  fear  there  might  be 

hesitation  for  a  time  -a  want  of  decision— a  want  of  firmness  ; 

no  one  doubts  that  ultimately  England  would  have  said : 

"  This  will  never  do  ;  we  must  prevent  the  conquest  of  Asia 

Minor;  we  must  interfere  in  this  matter  and  arrest  the  course 

of  Russia."      No  one,   I   am  sure,  in    this  country  who  im- 

tially   considers   this   question    can   for   a   moment   doubt 

what  under  any  circumstances  would  have  been  the  course  of 

this   country.     Well,   then,  that    being   the   case,   I   say  it  is 

|y    important    that    this    country    should    take   a    step 

rehand  which  should  indicate  what  the  policy  of  England 

would  be;  that  you  should  not  have  your  Ministers  meeting  in 

mini-Chamber,  hesitating  and  doubting,  and  considering 

<      ,  and  then  acting  at  last,  but  acting,  perhaps,  too 

I  that  the  responsibilities  of  this  country 

not  been  increa  edj  the  responsibilities  already  existed, 

I,  for  one,   would   never  shrink  from  increasing   the 

of    this    country    if    they   are    responsibilities 

a   to  be  undertaken.     The  responsibilities  of  this 

ntry   are    practically  diminished   by   the   course   we   have 

A    I  ordi  and  Gentlemen,  one  of  the  results  of  my  attending 

of    Berlin    has    been    to   prove   what    I   always 

olute  fact,  that  neither  the  Crimean  War 

le  devastating  war  which  has  just  terminated 


Lord  Beaconsfield  on  the  Berlin  Congress.    187 

would  have  taken  place  if  England  had  spoken  with  the 
necessary  firmness.  Russia  has  complaints  to  make  against 
this  country  that  neither  in  the  case  of  the  Crimean  War  nor 
on  this  occasion — and  I  do  not  shrink  from  my  share  of  the 
responsibility  in  this  matter — was  the  voice  of  England  so 
clear  and  decided  as  to  exercise  a  due  share  in  the  guidance  of 
European  opinion.  Well,  Gentlemen,  suppose  my  noble  friend 
and  myself  had  come  back  with  the  Treaty  of  Berlin,  and  had 
not  taken  the  step  which  is  to  be  questioned  within  the  next 
eight-and-forty  hours,  could  we  with  any  self-respect  have 
met  our  countrymen  when  they  asked,  What  securities  have 
you  made  for  the  peace  of  Europe? — How  far  have  you 
diminished  the  chance  of  perpetually  recurring  war  on  this 
question  of  the  East  by  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  ?  Why,  they  could 
say,  all  we  have  gained  by  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  is  probably  the 
peace  of  a  few  years,  and  at  the  end  of  that  time  the  same 
phenomenon  will  arise,  and  the  Ministers  of  England  must 
patch  up  the  affair  as  well  as  they  could.  That  was  not  the 
idea  of  public  duty  entertained  by  my  noble  friend  and  myself. 
We  thought  the  time  had  come  when  we  should  take  steps 
which  would  produce  some  order  out  of  the  anarchy  and 
chaos  that  had  so  long  prevailed.  We  asked  ourselves  was  it 
absolutely  a  necessity  that  the  fairest  provinces  of  the  world 
should  be  the  most  devastated  and  most  ill-used,  and  for 
this  reason,  that  there  is  no  security  for  life  or  property  so 
long  as  that  country  is  in  perpetual  fear  of  invasion  and 
aggression  ? 

It  was  under  these  circumstances  that  we  recommended  the 
course  we  have  taken,  and  I  believe  that  the  consequence  of 
that  policy  will  tend  to  and  even  secure  peace  and  order  in  a 
portion  of  the  globe  which  hitherto  has  seldom  been  blessed 
by  these  celestial  visitants.  I  hold  that  we  have  laid  the 
foundation  of  a  state  of  affairs  which  may  open  a  new  Con- 
tinent to  the  civilisation  of  Europe,  and  that  the  welfare  of  the 
world  and  the  wealth  of  the  world  may  be  increased  by  avail- 
ing ourselves  of  that  tranquillity  and  order  which  the  more 


Modem  Political  Orations. 

intimate  connection  of  England  with  that  country  will  now 
roduce.     But  I  am  sorry  to  say  that,  though  we  taxed  our 
brains  and  our  thought  to  establish  a  policy  which  might  be 
,enencial  to  the  country,  we  have  not  satisfied  those  who  are 
itics      I  was  astonished  to  learn  that  the  Convention  of 
.  4th  June  has  been  described  as  an  "insane"  Convention. 
It  is  a  strong  epithet.     I  do  not  myself  pretend  to  be  as  com- 
ment a  judge  of  insanity  as  my  right  hon.  opponent   (Mr 
Gladstone).     I  will  not  say  to  the  right  hon.  gentleman  Naviget 
Autuyram,  but  I  would  put  this  issue  to  an  English  jury— 
Which  do  you  believe  most  likely  to  enter  into  an  insane  Con- 
vention, a  body  of  English  gentlemen,  honoured  by  the  favour 
and  the  confidence   of  their  fellow-subjects,   managing   your 
affairs  for  five  years,  I  hope  with  prudence  and  not  altogether 
without  success,  or  a  sophisticated  rhetorician,  inebriated  with 
the  exuberance  of  his  own  verbosity,  and  gifted  with  an  egotis- 
tical imagination  that  can  at  all  times  command  an  interminable 
and  inconsistent  series  of  arguments  to  malign  an  opponent 
and  to  glorify  himself? 

My  Lords  and  Gentlemen,  I  leave  the  decision  upon  that 

Convention  to  the   Parliament    and    people    of    England.       I 

that  in  that  policy  are  deeply  laid  the  seeds  of  future 

welfare,  not  merely  to  England,  but  to  Europe  and  to  Asia; 

and  confident  that  the  policy  we  have  recommended  is  one 

that  will  be  supported  by  the  country,  I  and  those  that  act 

with  me  can  endure  these  attacks.     My  Lords  and  Gentlemen, 

ne  thank  you  once  more  for  the  manner  in  which  you  have 

led  me  to-day.      These  arc  the  rewards  of  public  life 

that  : .'  vei  pall   -the  sympathy  of  those  who  have  known  you 

iio   have   worked  with  you  long,  who   have  the  same 

ntons  in  policy  that  ought  to  be  pursued  in  this  great 

i  These  are  sentiments  which  no  language 

iently  appreciate    which  are  a  consolation  under  all 

and  the  highest  reward  that  a  public  man  can 

lerous  feeling  that  has  prompted  you  to  wel- 

olleague  and  myself  on  our  return  to  England  will 


Lord  Beaconsfield  on  the  Berlin  Congress.     189 

inspire  and  strengthen  our  efforts  to  serve  our  country ;  and  it 
is  not  merely  that  in  this  welcome  you  encourage  those  who 
are  doing  their  best  for  what  they  conceive  to  be  the  public 
interests,  but  to  tell  to  Europe  also  that  England  is  a  grate- 
ful country,  and  knows  how  to  appreciate  the  efforts  of  her 
public  servants,  who  are  resolved  to  maintain  to  their  utmost  the 
Empire  of  Great  Britain. 


JOSEPH  COWEN  ON  THE  FOREIGN 

POLICY   OF    ENGLAND. 

Newcastle-on-Tyne,  January  31ST,  1880. 

v tin.;  the  Dissolution  of  Parliament  and  a  General  Election    Mr 
instei  meeting  of  his  constituents  in  the  Town  Hall, 
ill,  r  11.  W.  NEWTON  presiding.] 

Mr   Chairman,    Ladies,    and   Gentlemen,— I   have   rarely 
addressed  a  meeting  with  more  misgivings  than  I  do  this  one. 
My  h(  sitation  does  not  arise  from  any  doubt  I  entertain  as  to 
of  the  statements  I  am  about  to  make,  of  the 
of  the  argument  I  propose  sustaining,  or  of  the  sound- 
deductions  I  intend  to  draw.     On  all  these  points  I 
Ay  persuaded  in  my  own  mind.     My  reluctance  to 
om  the  conviction  I  entertain  that  anything 
.vill  be  valueless,  and  may  be  locally  mischievous. 
,]  problems  of  great  intricacy  and  importance  have 
Ulement  since  the  last  general  election.     Many 
1  are  old  ones,  some  of  them  centuries  old, 
tot  then  before  the  electors.     The  Liberals,  as 
.    ,      assumed   towards   them    an    altered    attitude. 
abandoned,  no  doubt  for  reasons  which  appeared 
.   the    historic    policy    of    the    country,    if    not 
principles  of   the  party.      There  is  necessarily 
with  precision  the   position  of  a  complex 
1  oange.     But  no  injustice  will,  I  think,  be 


Joseph  Cowen  on  Foreign  Policy.  191 

done  to  anyone  by  saying  that  many  Liberals,  on  foreign 
questions,  have  espoused  in  spirit,  if  not  in  substance,  the 
doctrines  which  were  held  with  such  tenacity  and  expounded 
with  such  earnestness  by  that  band  of  capable  men  who  made 
the  world  their  debtors  by  their  labours  for  Free  Trade. 

I  have  not  been  able  to  become  a  convert  to  this  new  faith. 
I  am  not,  and  never  was,  an  adherent  of  what  is  popularly 
known  as  the  "Manchester  School."  On  this  subject  there 
is  between  myself  and  some  of  my  friends  a  distinct  divergency, 
which  I  have  no  desire  either  to  minimise  or  ignore.  I  am  in 
favour  of  an  European  and  national,  as  against  an  insular  and 
— I  use  the  word  in  no  offensive  sense— a  parochial  policy.  It 
may  seem  somewhat  hard  to  dismiss  a  member  because,  in  the 
course  of  a  Parliament,  he  has  not  been  able  to  change  his 
creed.  I  recognise,  however,  the  right  of  the  constituency  to 
demand  uniformity  of  view  from  their  representatives.  I  also 
feel  that  in  my  present  position  I  am  a  source  of  embarrassment 
to  many  and  of  annoyance  to  some ;  and  I  have  repeatedly 
expressed  my  willingness,  and  I  do  it  again  to-night,  to  solve 
all  difficulties  by  quietly  retiring.  It  has  not  been  thought 
desirable  that  an  election  should  take  place  in  Newcastle  at 
this  time ;  and  although  my  immediate  retirement  might  meet 
with  the  approval  of  some,  I  understand  that  it  would  not 
meet  with  the  general  approval  of  the  electors.  Such  being 
the  case,  in  my  judgment  it  would  have  been  wise  not  to  have 
re-opened  troublesome  topics,  which  may  add  possible  irrita- 
tion to  honest  difference  by  promoting  a  discussion  that  can 
be  fruitful  of  no  good  results.  I  do  not  object,  without 
further  hearing,  to  be  tried,  condemned,  and,  if  you  decree  it, 
dismissed. 

There  is  nothing  that  I  have  said  on  this  question  that  I 
wish  either  to  modify  or  retract.  There  is  nothing  that  I  have 
done  which  I  regret.  I  may  be  mistaken  ;  I  am  not  infallible ; 
but  I  believe  that  the  course  of  policy  I  have  supported  has 
been  the  best  for  England  and  the  best  for  liberty.  I  fear  my 
convictions  are  too  strongly  fixed  to  be  shaken.      I  am  not 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

either  so  sanguine  or  so  egotistical  as  to  suppose  that  anything 
I  can  say  will  turn  my  friends  from  the  faith  they  have  accepted 
much  devotion.     Apart  from  political  considerations, 
,ns  and  personal  predilections  and  prejudices  have 
•orted   into  the  controversy,  and   in  some   instances 
been   intensified   by  religious   animosities.     It   is 
;  to  reason  against  such  a  combination  of  active  and 
ments.     But  the  blast  that   blows  loudest  is  soon 
rid  having  lodged  an  earnest  protest  in  support 
.  I  am  willing  to  bend  to  the  storm  and  wait  for 
g  effects  of  experience  and  the  modifying  influence 
t  out  the  asperity  of  the  political  jehad  which  is 
ached  against  doctrines  that,  to  my  mind,  have 
ici    at  least  of  truth  and  justice  to  sustain  them. 
im  to  speak  I  will  do  so  frankly,  without  reservation 
ation.     In  a  country  where  unfortunately  speech  is 
mch  controlled  by,  and  so  much  based  on,  party  interest, 
ttle  favour  is  shown  to  the  politician  who  ignores  its  considera- 
and  ventures  upon  the  dangerous  practice  of  striving  to  be 
impartial.     If  he  speak  the  unbiassed  sentiments  of  his  own 
ind  he  secures  the  opposition  of  his  former  supporters,  the 
his  atrabilarious  opponents,  and  the  sneers,  if  not 
his,  of  some  of  his  associates.      But  sincerity  of 
uttc  nly  channel  of  truth,  and  I   believe  that  my 

len  will   listen  to  declarations  of  opinion  which 
opposition,  and  possibly  censure  of  some  of  them, 
larations  are  untainted,  as  I  trust  in  my  case  they 
>r,  with  either  levity  or  ignorance.     I  cannot  cite  a  new 
.    and   ;  can  adduce  a  new  argument  either  for  or 

e  poli<  y  that  this  country  has  recently  pursued.     The 
tten  about  and  spoken  of  so  often,  and  at 
argumentative  thread  is  worn  thin  and 
rhi         rature  on   the  interminable  theme  is  a  veritable 
in  which  every   form  of  thought,  every 
in,  is  presented  in  all  shapes  of  attraction  and 


Joseph  Co  wen  on  Foreign  Policy.  193 

But  if  what  I  say  is  not  new,  it  will  only  be  in  keeping  with 
the  speeches  of  more  distinguished  persons.  We  are  not  philo- 
sophers speculating  upon  what  might  be,  nor  philanthropists 
dilating  upon  what  ought  to  be,  nor  poets  chanting  the  dirge  of 
a  brilliant  but  buried  past.  We  are  matter-of-fact  politicians, 
talking  of  the  prosaic  present.  And  politics,  I  fear,  are  too 
often  controlled  more  by  self-interest  than  by  sentiment.  We 
are  not  dealing  with  an  ideal  State.  If  we  were,  the  fragmen- 
tary and  composite  Empire  of  Britain  would  not  realise  my 
Utopia.  Greece,  whose  name  has  been  for  centuries  a  watch- 
word upon  earth,  whose  fame  will  never  fade,  from  whose 
history  mankind  have  derived  inspiration  and  guidance,  and 
which  still  rises  upon  our  intellectual  sight  like  a  mountain-top 
gilded  with  sunshine,  amidst  the  devastations  of  a  flood — 
Greece,  I  say,  rather  than  law-giving,  conquering,  Imperial, 
splendid,  but  savage  Rome,  would  be  my  model.  I  would 
have  a  State  in  which  every  man  is  free,  and  where  every  man 
is  fortified  against  superstition  by  education,  and  against 
oppression  by  arms ;  where  the  arts  and  graces  of  Athens,  and 
the  martial  independence  of  Sparta,  would  commingle  with  the 
mercantile  and  industrial  enterprise  and  the  naval  prowess  of 
Britain ;  and  in  which,  while  influence  and  authority  are  won 
by  intellectual  strength  and  moral  worth,  a  proud  defiance 
could  be  bid  to  despotism's  banded  myriads. 

But  these  are  the  dreams  of  the  idealists.  We  belong  to  the 
real  and  the  active,  and  not  the  imaginary  world.  We  are  to 
deal  with  things  as  they  are,  and  not  as  we  can  sketch  them  in 
our  fancy.  We  are  the  inheritors  of  a  Colonial  Empire,  the 
most  widespread,  scattered,  and  extensive  ever  known.  It 
reaches  to  every  region,  and  has  its  feelers  and  its  feeders  in 
every  corner  of  the  globe.  Some  of  these  possessions  came  to 
us  in  a  questionable  shape,  and  by  means  that  no  one  can 
justify,  and  that  I,  at  least,  have  no  desire  either  to  palliate  or 
excuse.  But  the  present  generation  of  Englishmen  are  guiltless 
of  the  crime  attending  their  acquisition.  Our  Colonies  cover 
an  area  of  three  millions  of  square  miles,  and  have  a  population 

N 


Modern-  Political  Orations. 

million  persons  following  diverse  pursuits,  but  all 

one  mind,  aim,  and  tradition.     In  India  we  have 

he  thousand  miles,  an  area  of  one  and  a  half 

ire  miles,  and    240,000,000  of  people   under   our 

insular  position  frees  us  from  many  of  the  dangers 

and  Continental  States,   but  our  external  Empire 

the  same  time  one  of  the  most  sensitive  and  assail- 

.     No  serious  movement  can  take  place  in  any 

arth  without  our  feeling  its  influence.     No  country 

occupied  such   a   peculiar  position  as  Britain  and  her 

.liter  empires  now  hold.     It  is  not  egotism  to  say  that, 

standing  all  our  shortcomings,  power  so  vast  was  never 

wielded  with  so  sincere  a  desire  to  use  it  beneficially.     Every 

tribe  we  touch  acknowledges  our  supremacy,  and  looks  to  us 

either  in  conscious  fear  of  weakness,  or  with  brightening  hope 

articipating  in  our  elevation.     To  secure  the  existence,  to 

rivet  the  cohesion  of  this  vast  dominion,  blest  with  one  of  the 

forms  of  freedom  that  the  world  has  ever  seen,  to  carry 

int  countries  and  succeeding  ages  the  loftiest  form  of 

rivi!  is  our  mission.     To  abandon   the  opportunity  of 

•fulness  thus  conferred,  to  throw  aside  the  hope  of  securing 

hts   and   impartial   freedom,  to  destroy  the  means  of 

ling  of  fraternity  and  consciousness  of  common 

rial    interests   amongst  so    many    millions   of  our  fellow- 

•  1   be  a  narrow,  a  niggardly,  a  short-sighted,  and  a 

it  nation  to  pursue. 

[f  we  >uth  Africa,  what  would  be  the  result?    There 

British-born  men  and  women — our  own  kith  and 

Without  some  protection  from  the  Home 

the  1  ads   they  have  erected  by  years  of 

of  civilisation  and  of  commerce  that  they 

by  their  enterprise,  would  be  endangered,  if  not 

I  ailants  would  not  be  the  natives  of  the 

and    inoffensive,   but   savage   invaders 

rth,  wh<  much  alien  and  aggressors  as  the 

[]  dia,  a   like,  but  more  disastrous 


Joseph  Cowen  on  Foreign  Policy.         195 

result  would  ensue.  The  scores  of  different  races  and 
nations  into  which  the  population  of  that  country  is  divided 
would  fly  at  each  other's  throats.  In  the  earliest  encounters 
probably  the  fierce,  courageous,  unteachable,  and  intractable 
Mahommedans,  who  are  forty  millions  strong,  would  re-assert 
their  supremacy,  but  after  years  of  internecine  war  and  social 
disorder  the  country  would  eventually  fall  a  prey  to  a  foreign 
invader—  possibly  Russia.  The  8,000  miles  of  railway,  the 
18,000  miles  of  telegraph,  the  canals,  and  other  creations  of 
English  capital,  would  be  destroyed.  The  machinery  for  the 
administration  of  justice,  and  the  protection  of  life  and  property, 
which  England  has  created,  and  which  has  assured  to  the  com- 
mon people  of  India  more  security  and  greater  personal  freedom 
than  they  ever  enjoyed  under  former  rulers,  would  be  upset. 
This  country  would  suffer  equally  with  the  Indian  people;  the 
;£i  28,000,000  of  Indian  debt  would  have  to  be  provided  for  ; 
civil  servants  and  officers  whose  careers  would  be  destroyed 
would  require  their  pensions,  and  compensation  would  possibly 
be  demanded  by  traders  who  would  be  ruined  by  our  change  of 
policy.  India,  England,  and  the  world  would  all  be  injured. 
No  Englishman  could  contemplate  such  a  contingency  with 
approval,  or  acquiesce  in  it  with  satisfaction.  Now  that  we 
possess  it,  we  are  bound  to  protect  and  defend  India — to  hold 
it  against  any  enemy  as  stoutly  as  we  would  hold  Cornwall  or 
Caithness. 

England  is  not  so  many  square  roods  of  land,  but  a  nation 
whose  people  are  united  in  love  of  soil  and  race,  by  mutual 
sympathy  and  tradition,  by  character  and  institutions.  It  is  not 
a  fortuitous  concourse  of  individuals  merely  bound  over  to  keep 
the  peace  towards  each  other,  and,  for  the  rest,  following  their 
own  selfish  objects,  and  crying  outside  their  own  cottage, 
counting-house,  or  country,  let  everything  "  take  its  course." 
Our  country  is  something  more  than  the  mere  workshop  of  the 
world,  a  manufactory  for  flashy  clothing,  and  a  market  for  cheap 
goods.  We  are  pledged  to  each  other  as  citizers  of  a  great 
nationality,  and  by  solidarity  of  life.     We  owe  a  duty  to  our- 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

to  our  families,  and  to  our  country,  and  also  to  our 
ition  and  to  the  future.     We  have  grown  great,  not  merely 
it  of  our  possessions  and  the  fertility  of  our  soil,  but 
cservation  of  our  liberties  and  the  energy  and  enter- 
e  of  our  people.     The  present  generation  is  the  outcome  of 
of  effort.     The  history  of  England  is  woven  and  inter- 
laced and  interlaced  with  the  history  of  Europe  and  the 
Id  for  a  thousand  years.     Wherever  liberty  has  struggled 
ally,  or  wherever   it   has  suffered   in  vain,  there  our 
nave  gone.     There  is  nothing  in  human  affairs  that 
be  foreign  to  us.     Wealth  almost  beyond  the  dreams  of 
avarice,  territorial  possessions,  and  education  bring  with  them 
•risibilities.     Power,  to  the  very  last  particle  of  it, 
is   duty.     Unto  whom  much  is  given,  of  him  much  will  be 
lired. 

have  inherited,  so  we  have  to  transmit.     No  one  can 
slightingly  on  the  results  which  rest  upon  our  national 
But  if  ever  a  nation,  drunk  with  the  fumes  of  power 
and  wealth,  makes  an  apotheosis  of  gold  and  material  pleasure, 
riches  to  duty,  comfort  to  courage,  selfish  enjoyment  to 
t  and  sacrifice,  it  sinks  in  the  respect  of  others,  and 
s  the  first  and  strongest  incentive  to  human  effort.     Great 
m  mands  great  effort,  and  great  effort  is  the  life  and  soul 

individuals  and  nations.     I  contend,  therefore,  for  these 
—the  integrity  of  the  Empire,  and  the  interest,  the 
duty  of  England  to  play  her  part  in  the  great 
I,  as  did  our  illustrious  ancestors,  the  fore- 
run ropean  freedom. 

ply  these  principles  to  the  recent  controversies  in 

I  and  ll  on  that  has  been  taken  by  this  country. 

one  of  "in    most  distant,  as  it  is  one  of  our  most 

We  hold  it  more  as  conquerors  than 

ire  urgent  and  obvious  reasons  why  our 

ild  be  rapid,  easy,  and  expeditious. 

nd  commercial  enterprise,  have 

e  the  best  route  to  it  through  the  Isthmus 


Joseph  Cowen  on  Foreign  Policy.  197 

which  unites  the  continents  of  Asia  and  Africa.  The  Egyptians, 
the  Phoenicians,  and  the  Carthagenians,  before  the  Christian 
era,  travelled  to  India  this  way.  In  the  Middle  Ages  the 
Genoese  and  Venetian  merchants  went  by  the  same  road.  The 
first  envoy  whom  England  ever  sent  to  India  also  journeyed  by 
this  path — Bishop  Sherborne,  who  was  deputed  by  good  King 
Alfred  to  undertake  a  mission  to  the  people  on  the  coast  of 
Coromandel  and  Malabar.  As  before  the  Christian  era,  so 
to-day — the  most  direct  route  to  the  East  is  by  the  Isthmus  of 
Suez  and  Asia  Minor.  The  Suez  Canal  is  the  link  which  unites 
our  Eastern  and  Western  Empires.  Through  it  we  not  only 
reach  India  but  our  dependencies  in  the  Chinese  Seas,  our 
Australian  colonies,  the  Mauritius,  and  the  British  settlements 
on  the  East  Coast  of  Africa.  It  is  the  neck  which  connects  the 
head  with  the  extremities  of  our  Empire.  It  has  been  suggested 
that  if  we  lost  it  we  could  resume  our  old  road  by  the  Cape  of 
Good  Hope,  It  is  quite  true  that  this  could  be  done.  It  is 
equally  true  that  we  might  return  to  pack-horses  and  stage 
waggons  as  a  means  of  transit,  but  it  is  not  likely  that  we  shall 
do  so ;  it  would  be  contrary  to  the  genius  of  civilisation  and  the 
spirit  of  our  times  thus  to  recede.  We  have  got  the  Canal,  and 
in  the  interests  of  ourselves  and  of  the  world  we  will  hold  it  free 
for  everyone  at  all  hazards.  If  Russia  were  to  obtain  political 
supremacy  on  either  side  of  the  Bosphorus,  she  could  stop  the 
Canal  or  intercept  our  way  to  India  by  the  Euphrates  Valley. 
North  of  the  Danube  she  is  comparatively  harmless ;  but  with 
the  Black  Sea,  the  Sea  of  Marmora,  and  the  Straits,  she  would 
have  at  her  command  a  position  unequalled  in  the  world  for 
commerce  and  for  war.  She  could  barricade  the  Dardanelles, 
and  behind  it  she  would  have  two  inland  seas,  which  would  be 
at  one  and  the  same  time  harbour,  arsenal,  dockyard,  and  naval 
station.  She  could  there  with  security  and  ease  equip  and  arm 
her  ships,  and  train  her  sailors,  and  manoeuvre  her  fleet.  In  the 
numberless  islands  and  roadsteads  of  the  Archipelago  she  would 
have  protection  for  conducting  either  offensive  or  defensive 
warfare,  such  as  is  to  be  found  in  no  other  part  of  the  globe  in 


i9 S  Modern  Political  Orations. 

il  space.     This  position  is  the  key  to  Europe -one  of  its 

life-arteries.     Its  occupation  by  a  conquering,  ambitious,  and 

spotic  Power  would  be  a  danger  to  England,  to  Europe,  and 

iberty. 

The  aspirations  of  the  Russian  peasant  are  southward.     He 
>  be  clear  of  the  Boreal  regions  of  snow  and  solitude  in 
which  he  is  enveloped  for  the  greater  part  of  the  year.      As 
naturally  as  the  sap  rises  in  the  vine,  so  naturally  does  the  desire 
of  the  Russian  rise  to  reach  more  genial  regions,  and  to  burst 
the  political  and  frozen  cerements  which  rob  him  of  life  and  of 
development.     It  is  only  the  force  of  the  iron  yoke  that  makes 
him  a  labourer.    By  choice  and  by  taste  he  would  be  a  wanderer, 
a  boatman,  a  pedlar,  or  a  travelling  mechanic.     Russia  is  not  a 
nation   like  France,   or  Italy,  or  Spain ;    it  is  not  a  dynastic 
ition  of  States  like  Austria;   but  it  is  a  crushing  and 
devouring  political  mechanism,  which  has  annihilated  full  fifty 
distinct  nationalities.     It  kills  every  spring  of  independence  ; 
it  intercepts  and  has  covered  whole  continents  with  the  melan- 
choly monuments  of  nations.     Poland,  the  Niobe  of  nations, 
whose  gallant  sons  have  been  the  knight-errants  of  liberty  the 
world  over,  has  been  all  but  interred  by  her  in  Siberia.     Cir- 
ia,  the  cradle  of  the  human   race,  whose   people  are  the 
manliest  and   handsomest   in  the  world,   has  been  converted 
into  a  tomb.     And  she  is  now  seeking  to  engulph  the  desert 
steppes,  the  briny  waters,  and  the  shifting  burning  sands  that  lie 
the  ( Caucasus,  the  Caspian,  and  the  Afghan  Table  Land 
The  intereit,  the  instinct,  and,  to  some  extent,  the  necessity,  of 
the  Russian  people,  urge  them  to  seek  "fresh  fields  and  pastures 
away  from  their  biting  north  winds,  their  icy  frosts,  their 
bleak  and  limitless  plains.     The  government,  which  is  Asiatic 
rul.\    bastardized    by   German    beaucracy,    with  appropriating 
triven  to  annex  territory  in  all  directions  ;  while  the 
animated  by  an  ambition  akin  to  that  of  "Mace 
Madman   and  the  Swede,"  have   been    dazzled  by  a 
univt  i  sal  i  mpire.     To  find  a  foothold  for  their  power 
inrivalled   natural  resources  which  Turkey  affords,  has 


Joseph  Cowen  on  Foreign  Policy.  199 

been  their  aim.  The  defeat  of  Russia  in  the  Crimea  modified 
for  a  time  her  external  and  internal  policy.  To  soften  the  dis- 
content created  by  the  surrender  of  Sebastopol  liberal  legal 
changes  were  instituted,  and  a  decree  emancipating  the  serfs 
was  promulgated.  The  benefits  conferred  by  this  instrument 
are  more  apparent  than  real.  By  it  the  peasants  were  relieved 
from  some  claims  to  the  landlords,  but  they  were  charged  with 
equivalent  burdens  for  the  national  revenue ;  and  the  Imperial 
functionary  is  often  a  harder  taskmaster  than  the  local  lord  of 
the  soil.  M.  Walewski  calculated  that  the  emancipation  of  the 
serfs  doubled  the  direct  taxes  of  the  Empire.  Repulsed  in  the 
south  and  west,  Russia  sought  an  outlet  for  her  stream  of  con- 
quest in  Central  Asia.  Unnoticed,  to  a  large  extent  unknown, 
she  has,  in  that  quarter  of  the  globe,  during  recent  years  absorbed 
a  territory  nearly  equal  in  extent  to  Continental  Europe,  and 
she  has  now  a  bristling  array  of  bayonets  in  threatening 
proximity  to  our  Indian  Empire. 

Although  popular  feeling  and  historical  recollection  have 
always  favoured  a  campaign  for  supplanting  the  Crescent  by  the 
Cross,  there  is  a  small  but  intelligent  and  influential  party  in 
Russia  who  are  adverse  to  this  tempting  and  treacherous  cry  of 
"  To  Constantinople ! "  They  contend  that  if  the  seat  of 
Government  were  removed  from  the  banks  of  the  cold  and 
misty  Neva  to  those  of  the  brilliant  Bosphorus,  the  Empire 
would  perish  through  the  effeminacy  generated  by  residence  in 
the  sunny  and  seductive  South.  Hardy  Northmen  would  be 
replaced  in  the  councils  of  the  Czar  by  the  intrigues  of  Greeks 
and  Bulgars.  This  would  lead  to  divisions  in  which  the  un- 
wieldy dominions  would  be  split  in  twain  through  the  struggles 
for  supremacy  that  would  ensue  betwreen  the  genuine  Slav  and 
the  idle  mongrels  that  would  flutter  round  the  Court  of  the  new 
Byzantium.  This  view  has  been  maintained  not  only  by  authors 
like  Gurowski,  and  by  soldiers  like  Fadeof,  but  by  many  Russian 
Liberals.  Three  of  the  most  remarkable  men  that  the  revolu- 
tions in  the  East  sent  into  Western  Europe  were  Bakunin,  whom 
the  Emperor  Nicholas,  after  an  interview  with  him,  described 


Modern  Political  Orations. 


but  dangerous  madman";  Mr  Alexander  Herzen, 
ascinating  of  men,  who  combined  the  philo- 
nv,  the  politics  of  Republican  France,  and  the 
se  of  Englishmen,  with  the  native  Russian 
tnd  Mieroslowski,  the  brilliant  and  eloquent  Polish 
1    have   heard  all  of  these  gentlemen   contend  that 
.ould  not  see  for  many  years— probably  not  for  genera- 
mother  effort  made  by  Russia  to  obtain  Constantinople, 
v  held  this  opinion  not  because  they  all  approved  of  it — 
inin  certainly  did  not— but  their  belief  was  that  the  German 
had  so  realised  the  hopelessness  of  a  struggle 
with  the  Western  Powers  that  they  would  not  resume  it.     The 
hesitating,  indolent,  but  kindly  man  who  is  now  at  the 
of  the  Russian  people,  has  always,  until  recently,  been 
I  with  a  settled  determination  not  to  renew  the  enter- 
that  ended  so  disastrously  for  his  father.     The  idea  was 
ral  that  India  and  China,  rather  than  Turkey,  would  be 
ed  by  Russian  advance.     I  own  that  I  largely  shared 
that  opinion,     but  events  have  shown  that  this  was  an  error, 
and  that   the   passion    for   accomplishing  what  the   people   of 
I  tn  he  their  manifest  destiny  was  not  dead  but 
only  slumbered     the  leopard  had  not  changed  his  spots  nor 
Tartar  his  skin. 
The  first  pronounced  intimation  of  the  retention  of  this  old 
in  the    course    pursued   by   Russia  during  the 
rman  war.      Immediately  our  friend  and  ally  France 
ed  in  that  di  inflict,  the  Czar  intimated  that 

longi  i  to  comply  with  the  clauses  of  the  Treaty 
i lie   Black  Sea.     He  did  not  invite  the 
who,  along  with   himself,  were  parties 
Y  t"   i  nd   discuss  the   reasonableness  of  his 

ration,  but,  with  autocratic  pride  and  despotic 
laimed  his  determination  to  look  upon 
'ill  and  void.      1  le  had  observed 
in  a  position  to  unite  with  England  for 
he  was  temporarily  disabled,    he 


Joseph   Coiven  on  Foreign  Policy.  201 

seized  the  opportunity  to  break  an  engagement  which  he  had 
solemnly  entered  upon.  This  was  the  first  sign  of  the  change, 
the  effects  of  which  Europe  has  just  witnessed.  Russia,  in  her 
attacks  upon  neighbouring  States,  follows  an  uniform  and  un- 
varying plan.  She  begins  usually  by  professing  an  interest  in 
their  welfare.  At  one  time  she  is  moved  by  sympathy  for  her 
brethren  in  bonds  as  if  there  were  no  person  in  bonds  in  Russia. 
At  another  time  she  is  roused  to  fervour  for  her  co-religionists, 
as  if  there  were  no  persons  suffering  for  their  religious  opinions 
within  her  own  borders.  She  knows  how  to  lure  adjoining 
rulers  to  destruction  by  encouraging  them  in  every  frivolous 
expense,  every  private  vice,  and  every  public  iniquity,  as  she 
did  Abdul  Aziz  and  many  an  unfortunate  Asiatic  Khan.  She 
can  compass  the  destruction  of  popular  liberty  by  Jesuitical 
intrigue,  as  she  did  in  Poland.  She  can  engage  in  plots  and 
conspiracies,  as  she  did  more  recently  in  Bulgaria.  Ignorance, 
ambition,  corruption,  are  all  made  in  turn  to  minister  to  her 
designs.  The  cupidity  of  Turkish  pashas,  who  too  often 
obtained  their  positions  by  bribery,  and  held  them  by  oppres- 
sion and  extortion,  and  the  hopeless  confusion  into  which 
the  ministers  of  the  Sultan  had  allowed  affairs  to  drift  at 
Constantinople,  formed  a  favourable  field  for  the  work  of 
Russian  emissaries.  The  stereotyped  process  was  followed. 
There  was  first  complaint,  then  suggestion,  and  then  the  inevit- 
able conference,  and  the  equally  inevitable  war.  The  Turkish 
people,  both  Mahommedan  and  Christian,  suffered  under  solid 
and  serious  grievances.  They  had  been  oppressed  and  outraged 
by  a  system  of  administration  that  was  outrageous  and  indefen- 
sible ;  but  they  sought  redress  of  their  grievances  at  the  hands 
of  their  own  rulers,  and  not  from  a  foreign  Power.  This  was 
shown  by  the  stubborn  resistance  that  was  made  to  the  advance 
of  the  Austrian  troops  into  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina.  The 
Hungarians  are  the  truest  friends  the  Turks  had  in  Europe, 
and  if  they  fought  so  stoutly  to  oppose  their  entrance  to  their 
provinces  they  would  have  fought  with  greater  resolution 
against  the  admission    of  the   troops   of  any  other   country. 


M  Political  Orations. 

ian  diplomatists  and  generals  succeeded 

trembling  palace  pachas  around  them  at 

„n  whom  they  abstracted  a  Treaty  that  unmasked 

ed  them  in  a  broad  and  startling  light 

Id-  . 

n  any  doubt  before  as  to  the  aim  Russia 

war,    there   could   be    none    then. 

campaign  the  Czar  declared— first, 

■nd    to    enter     Constantinople;    second, 

k   territorial  acquisition;    and    third,   that 

i  ensure  the  freedom  of  the  oppressed 

lb   kept   the  word  of  promise  to  the  ear,  but 

He    did    not  enter  Constantinople, 

ided  it,  and  his  troops  would  have 

if   •  sh    licet    had    not    been    in  the  Sea 

nd  the  h   soldiers  within  call  at  Malta. 

ent   by  annexing   Bessarabia 

.    :  atoum,  Ardahan,  and   Kars.     By 

he  proposed  the  creation  of  what  he 

Bulgaria,"  in  other  words, 

an  province  was  to  be  created,  whose  borders 

I    th(    .  1  '._<  an.      If  the  Treaty 

!i    by   Russia,  she    would   have  had  a 

in   the    south,   she   would    have    had    another 

Antivari,  and   she   would    have    been    left 

thirds  of  the  shores  of  the   Black   Sea 

north  of  Constantinople,   round 

ind    Ratoum.      There    would    have    been 

of  ground,  little  more 

(  lountj  of   Durham  ;  then   the  new 

would   intervene  ;  and  beyond 

\i         ionia,    Albania,    and    the 

I  li    without    frontiers    and 

fi  li  n  .1  read)  and  easy  prey  to 

enough  and  Europe 

igh  t  her  to  resume  her  (in 


Joseph   Cowen  on  Foreign  Policy.  20 


.-> 


By  this  treaty  Russia  not  only  took  territory  in  Armenia 
and  Bessarabia,  but  she  proposed  also  to  subject  the  entire 
Balkan  peninsula  to  her  authority.  She  kept  her  third  en- 
gagement by  ignoring  the  nationality  of  the  Roumanian 
inhabitants  of  Bessarabia,  separating  them  from  a  free  and 
uniting  them  to  a  despotic  State.  She  despised  the  religious 
and  race  leanings  of  the  Mahommedans  near  Batoum,  and 
treated  with  contempt  the  nationality  of  Mahommedans  living 
in  the  southern  provinces  of  Turkey.  She  in  this  way  either 
broke  or  evaded  every  engagement  she  made.  To  have 
allowed  Russia  to  retain  the  position  she  projected  for  herself 
at  San  Stefano  would  have  destroyed  the  balance  of  power  in 
Europe,  to  have  put  the  fate  of  Asia  in  her  hand,  and  placed 
in  her  grasp  the  virtual  dictatorship  of  two  continents. 

The  main  purpose  of  international  arrangement  is  to  secure 
the  freedom  and  safety  of  smaller  States,  and  to  enable  them 
to  live  their  own  lives  while  surrounded  by  Powers  which 
could  annihilate  them  without  such  protection.  The  law 
of  nations  prevents  grasping,  greedy  Governments  crushing 
weaker  ones.  If  it  were  not  sustained,  the  marauders  of  the 
earth  would  be  let  loose  to  prey  upon  their  poor  and  feeble 
neighbours.  It  is  no  childish  dislike  of  Russia  that  leads 
me  to  contend  for  the  maintenance  of  this  law  and  this  policy. 
National  enmity  is  no  sound  or  permanent  ground  of  either 
duty  or  policy.  It  is  the  defence  of  England  and  of  Europe, 
the  assertion  and  maintenance  of  the  principles  of  free 
government  as  against  a  despotism — England  and  the  Western 
Powers  representing  the  one  and  Russia  the  other — that  leads 
me  to  resist  the  advance  of  the  Muscovites  to  the  Bosphorus. 
In  what  way  has  the  recent  policy  of  this  country  contributed 
to  the  defence  of  the  Empire,  the  maintenance  of  the  way  to 
India,  and  the  upholding  of  the  authority  of  this  country 
in  the  councils  of  Europe  ?  Let  us  look  fairly  at  the  facts  as 
they  are,  and  not  as  they  are  painted  by  rival  partisans.  To 
the  jaundiced  eye  everything  is  yellow.  By  the  fortunes  of 
war — a  hypocritical  war,  it  is  true,  but  still  by  the  fortunes  of 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

a  had  Turkey  at  her  mercy.      She  had  fought  and 

I  won.     She  did  not  occupy  Constantinople,  but  she 

amanded  it,  and  to  the  victors  belong  the  spoil.     It  is  true, 

I  have  just  explained,  she  made  certain   promises  before 

\  the  conflict  which   she  either  evaded  or  broke. 

s  not  remarkable.     It  would  have  been  more  remark- 

if  she   had   kept   them.      The   Treaty   of  San    Stefano 

:iot  fully  express  her  desires,  but  it  did  express  the  extent 

believed  she  could  with  safety  go  in  the  presence 

if  the  indifference  of  other  Powers,  and  the  assumed  incapacity 

and  unwillingness   of  England  to   oppose   her.     The   Treaty 

la   did  not    fully   express   what   this   country   wanted, 

hut  it  did  express  the  extent  of  the  concessions  that  it  was 

A   comparison   of  what   was    dictated 
>ia  at  S.m  Stefano,  and  what  was  accepted   by  her  at 
in,    will    show   the   measure   of  change   made    mainly  at 
the    in  of    tli is   country.      The   Russian    troops    have 

I  arkish  territory.     This  may  appear  a  simple  state- 
it    is    not    unimportant.     Every    effort    was    made 
ier   t<>   retain    possession   of  the  provinces  she   had  con- 
to  promote  discord  between  the  Mussul- 
I  Christian  inhabitants,  hoping  that  that  discord  could 
le  a  pretext  for  her  remaining.     Failing   in  that,  she 
ed   the   Jesuitical    plan    of    a    joint    occupation    of 
lumelia    by   herself  and    other    Powers.       These 
■'■<  re  baffled;  and  there  is  now  not  a  single 
of  the    l'ruth.     If  the   Treaty  of  San 
■I    as   it   was  drawn,  Turkey  would   not  only 
nbered    but    destroyed.     She   has   now  the 
a  fresh  start  in  national  life.      She  can, 
d  rehabilitate    herself  in   the  estimation 

irorld. 

yet,  I  am  bound  to  say,  of  this 

[ible   pashas  who  control  her  policy 

ad   foi  otten  nothing  by  the 

is.      The  Government  is 


Joseph   Coiven  on  Foreign  Policy,  205 

as  rotten  as  the  portals  of  the  Porte  are  worm-eaten.  These 
men  have  most  of  the  vices  of  both  Eastern  and  Western 
peoples,  and  few  of  their  virtues.  There  are  persons  high  in 
the  confidence  of  the  Sultan  who  are  as  completely  under  the 
control  of  the  enemies  of  their  country  as  Faust  was  under  the 
control  of  Mephistopheles.  But  though  the  Porte  perishes 
Turkey  will  remain.  The  Empire  vanished,  hut  France  was 
left.  There  is,  and  has  been  for  years,  an  active  and  patriotic 
party  in  Turkey,  who  have  been  striving  to  adapt  their  institu- 
tions to  Western  modes  of  life  and  to  European  requirements. 
The  simple  programme  of  this  party  is  the  fusion  of  the 
various  races  in  the  peninsula  into  an  united  State,  based  upon 
the  equality,  religious  and  political,  of  all.  Fuad  Pasha  and 
Ali  Pasha  laboured  long  and  earnestly  for  these  principles,  and 
they  are  advocated  with  equal  sincerity  by  Midhat  and  his 
supporters.  Men  of  all  creeds  and  all  races  will  be  placed  on 
a  common  level.  This  programme  has  the  support  of  Christians 
and  Mahommedans  alike.  One  of  the  most  painful  and  regret- 
table incidents  of  this  controversy  was  the  disparaging  way  in 
which  the  honest  efforts  of  these  Turkish  reformers  were  spoken 
of  by  Liberal  politicians  in  England.  Whoever  else  cared  to 
sneer  at  the  Turkish  Constitution,  it  certainly  was  no  part  of 
the  duty  of  professed  advocates  of  Liberal  government  to  take 
up  their  parable  against  it.  It  is  certainly  not  impossible  to 
conceive  of  the  establishment  of  a  Government  in  which  both 
Mahommedans  and  Christians  may  be  united,  and  the  pernicious 
influence  which  now  predominates  at  Constantinople  be 
exorcised  from  Turkish  political  life.  By  the  Treaty  of  San 
Stefano  injustice  would  not  only  have  been  done  to  the  Greeks, 
but  that  country  would  have  been  condemned  to  sustain  an 
exhausting  conflict  for  its  bare  existence.  By  the  extension  of 
a  Slav  State  to  the  TEgean,  Greece  would  have  been  denied 
development.  With  resources  limited  and  population  scanty 
she  would  have  been  stripped  of  the  elements  of  growth.  She 
might  have  been  an  independent  State  truly,  but  so  weak  that 
she  would  have  been  unable  to  fulfil  the  purpose  of  her  foun- 


Modem  Political  Orations. 

She  has  now  the  opportunity  of   working   out   her 

-she  is  the  nucleus,  the  preparatory  agency  for  the 

Lent   of    a    Hellenic   State.      Greece   has  a  lofty 

to  fulfil,  and,  despite  present  unfavourable  signs,  I  do 

r  of  seeing  her  accomplish  it.      She  is  something 

better  than  when  Byron  mournfully  described  her  as 

but  living  Greece  no  more."     She  does  live ;  she  has 

icd  a  soul  almost  "  within  the  ribs  of  death  "— 

••  The  Spartan  blood  that  in  her  veins  yet  throbs  at  freedom's  call : 
stone  of  old  Greece— had  it  not  its  hero-tale? 
re  they  fought,  where  they  fell,  'twas  on  every  hill  and  dale. 
The  dead  are  but  the  hero  seed  that  will  spring  to  life  again. 

By  the  Treaty  of  Berlin,  Greece  gained  but  little,  but  at  least 
not  by  it  "cribbed,  cabined,  and  confined"  to  the 
larrow  limits  of  her  too  restricted  territory.     The  idea  of  most 
European  Liberals  has  been  that  Russian  aggression  could  be 
■  1  only  by  the  creation  of  a  belt  of  free  States  between  the 
and  the  Balkans.     The  different  nationalities  would  be 
grouped  in  distinct  organizations,  and,  combined,  they 
a  more  effective  barrier  to  Muscovite  progress  than  an 
receding  empire  like  Turkey.     Many  Liberals  who 
1  with  this  principle  saw  difficulties  to  its  practical  realisa- 
The  inhabitants  of  this  region  are  chiefly  members  of 
hureh.     The  Czar  is  the  head  of  that  Church,  and 
he  holcL  them   in   a  state  of   political  as   well  as  theological 
Russia  has  often  professed  to  assist  at  the  birth  of  a 
lation,  but  she  always  managed  to  keep  her  thumb  upon 
i hat  it  could  be  destroyed  if  it  became  trouble- 
It   was  a   common   saying  of   the   Russian   troops  in 
"We  have  now  got  these  Bulgar  pigs,  and  we  will 
Apart,  however,  from  these  speculative  objections 
distinct  nationalities — the  oft-declared  policy 
when  the   Emperor  Nicholas  proposed  to  Sir 
ton   Seymour  that   England  and    Russia  should  divide 
i  the  possessions  of  the  Sick  Man,  he  said  there 
,  points  in  his  proposed  scheme  which  he  was  willing 


Joseph  Cowen  on  Foreign  Policy.  207 

to  yield  to  the  wishes  of  England,  but  there  was  one  point  on 
which  he  would  never  yield.  Whatever  else  he  consented  to, 
he  would  never  consent  to  the  establishment  of  a  number  of 
small  and  independent  States  on  the  Russian  frontier.  These 
would  be,  he  said,  nothing  but  nurseries  in  which  a  perpetual 
crop  of  Mazzinis  and  Kossuths  would  be  raised  ;  their  opinions 
would  penetrate  into  his  dominions  and  endanger  the  necessary 
authority  of  his  government. 

This  was  then  the  settled  policy  of  Russia,  and  has  been 
authoritatively  expressed  repeatedly  since.  Bulgaria,  as  created 
by  the  Treaty  of  San  Stefano,  would  have  been  little  more  than 
a  Russian  Principality ;  but  by  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  the 
Bulgarian  people  had  had  afforded  to  them  the  opportunity  of 
winning  for  themselves  an  independent  national  life.  Some 
few  years  ago  the  Bulgarians  were  held  up  in  this  country  as 
models  of  Christian  meekness.  Recently  they  have  been  con- 
demned with  almost  equal  vigour,  and  their  character  has 
certainly  developed  some  not  very  lovable  attributes.  They 
profess  to  be  Christians,  but  they  have  scarcely  acted  upon  the 
Christian  principle  of  doing  unto  others  as  they  would  like  to 
be  done  by.  They  complained  loudly  and  justly  of  the  oppres- 
sion they  suffered  from  the  Turkish  pashas  ;  but  now,  when 
they  have  the  power,  they  have  manifested  toward  their 
Mussulman  neighbours  a  more  arbitrary  and  tyrannical  spirit 
than  these  Mussulmans  ever  showed  towards  them.  But  I 
have  no  wish  to  judge  them  harshly.  A  nation  that  has  for 
generations  been  sunk  in  ignorance  and  vice  cannot  be 
expected  all  at  once  to  realize  the  enlightened  magnanimity  of 
philosophers.  People  who  have  been  trampled  on  will  re- 
member it;  those  who  have  been  injured  will  retaliate,  and 
those  who  have  been  oppressed  will  not  all  at  once  forget.  But 
the  Bulgarians  in  time  will  take  their  place  amongst  the 
European  family  of  nations,  and  shake  off  some  of  the  offensive 
characteristics  that  have  recently  distinguished  them.  The 
most  gratifying  and  encouraging  intelligence  that  has  come 
from  the  East  of  Europe  recently    is  that  these  independent 


2o8  Modern  Political  Orations. 

ates  had  realised  their  position.     They  have   learned    that 
Russia's  interest  in  their  behalf  was  certainly  not  disinterested. 
The  Roumanians  remember  with  bitterness  that  although  they 
ie  to  the  assistance  of  their  big  neighbours  when  they  were 
1  sad  straits  before  Plevna,  their  reward  has  been  the  loss  of 
of  their  most  important  provinces.     The   entire  tone   of 
feeling  throughout  these  regions  is  a  determination  on  the  part 
of  these  States  to  assert  their  independence  and  shake  them- 
selves clear  of  Russian  influence  and  direction.     But  the  most 
important  event  that  has  taken  place  in  Turkey  has  been  the 
occupation  of  Bosnia  by  Austria.     This  action  cannot  be  justi- 
fied on  the  grounds  of  national  right  or  justice.     I  certainly 
have  no  wish  to  extenuate  or  defend  it.     It  is  understood  that 
the  clause  in  the  Treaty  of  Berlin,  which  assured  these  provinces 
to  Austria,  owed  its  authorship  to  Prince  Bismarck  and  Count 
Andrassy.     Germany  contends  that  the  Danube  is  a  German 
stream — that  as  she  controls  its  source  so  should  she  command 
its  mouth.     German  colonists  are  planted  along  its  banks,  and 
their  statesmen  are  unwilling   to  allow  it  to  pass  under   the 
control    of   Russia.      Austria   objects  to   the   creation   of  an 
independent  Slav  State  on  the  west,  as  she  has  already  on  her 
hi  borders.     For  these  dynastic  and  State  reasons,   the 
occupation,    or  rather  the  annexation,  of  these  provinces  by 
Austria  has  been  assured.     I  am  not  justifying  what  has  been 
done,  and  am  dealing  only  with  the  facts  as  they  are. 

The  occupation  of  Bosnia  by  Austria  renders  the  advance  of 

Russia  to  Constantinople  all  but  impossible.     Both   political 

and   military  reasons   combine  to  prevent  her   achieving   her 

designs  on  the  great  city  of  the  East.     The  case  may  be  put  in 

The  design  of  Russia,  as  revealed  by  the  Treaty 

ino,  was  to  obtain  a  preponderating  influence  in  the 

Balkan  peninsula.     The  object  of  England  was  to  prevent  her 

doing  this.     The  result  is  that  Russia  is  now  further  from  the 

iorus  and  less  likely  to  get  there,  than  she  has  ever  been; 

s  has  been  accomplished  chiefly  by  the  action  taken  by 

itry.      It  has  been  achieved,  too,  without  the  loss  of  a 


Joseph   Cowen  on  Foreign  Policy.        209 

single  English  life,  or  without  our  setting  a  single  regiment  in 
line  of  battle.  Of  all  the  strange  things  that  I  have  heard 
during  this  controversy,  the  strangest  is  that  Russia  has 
achieved  a  victory,  while  England  has  sustained  a  defeat.  We 
were  told  this  in  varying  forms  almost  daily.  I  do  not  think 
anyone  else  in  Europe  says  so  except  some  English  politicians. 
It  is  a  fact  beyond  dispute,  that  the  military  and  aggressive 
party  in  Russia  are  loudly  proclaiming  that  the  victories  they 
won  with  so  much  difficulty  in  the  field  have  been  abstracted 
from  them  in  the  Council-Chamber.  They  were  dissatisfied 
with  the  mode  in  which  the  war  was  commenced  and  for  some 
time  conducted,  but  the  advance  of  the  troops  to  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Constantinople  consoled  them  for  a  season.  The 
Treaty  of  San  Stefano,  objectionable  as  it  was  regarded  by 
England,  was  considered  by  the  active  party  in  Russia  as 
incomplete  and  unsatisfactory.  Their  complaints  against  it, 
however,  were  mollified  by  the  assurance  held  out  to  them  that 
it  was  only  temporary.  But  when  even  that  unsatisfactory 
treaty  had  to  be  subjected  to  the  revision  and  alteration  of  the 
other  European  States  at  Berlin,  their  discontent  assumed  an 
active  and  threatening  attitude.  The  promulgation  of  the 
Treaty  of  Berlin  corresponds  with  the  recommencement  of  a 
period  of  political  assassinations  and  plots.  This  reveals 
popular  discontent,  while  the  marching  and  counter-marching 
of  Russian  troops,  and  the  massing  of  such  numbers  on  the 
German  and  Austrian  frontiers,  reveal  the  state  of  feeling  which 
pervades  the  governing  class.  It  is  indisputable  that,  in  the 
estimation  of  men  familiar  with  Russian  society,  the  Treaty  of 
Berlin  has  shaken  the  system  of  government  to  its  foundation ; 
while  the  war  which  Englishmen  are  so  fond  of  regarding 
as  a  triumph  for  Russia  and  a  discomfiture  for  this 
country,  is  looked  upon  by  Russians  as  having  entailed 
upon  their  country  a  harvest  of  discontent  and  disappoint- 
ment. To  balance  the  territorial  advantages  gained  bv 
other  Powers,  we  have  obtained  a  more  assured  position  in 
the  Levant. 

O 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

I  will  not  enter  into  the  rather  pitiful  squabble  about  Cyprus 

whether  that  island  is  what  the  poets  of  the  past  have  painted 

it,    "the   blest,   the  beautiful,  the  salubrious,  the  happy,  the 
dream  and  the  desire  of  man,"  or,  as  it  is  drawn  by  partisan 
iticians  in  this  country,  "a  fever  bed  and  charnel-house." 
That  it  is  advantageously  situated  for  guarding  the  Suez  Canal 
from  any  danger  from  the  North,  and  that  it  affords  a  favourable 
starting  point  for  advancing  to  the  East  through  the  Euphrates 
will  scarcely  be  denied  by  anyone  who  has  impartially 
:iined  the  subject.     Military  and  naval  men  maintain  that 
.n  be  made  not  only  a  watch-tower  but  a  depot  for  arms  and 
ife  naval  station.    It  is  only  twenty-four  hours  from  Port  Said, 
nine  from  Acre,  and  six  from  Beyrout.     It  is  near  enough  to 
watch,  and  close  enough  to  strike,  if  we  required  to  strike,  in 
defence  of  our  road  to  the  Red  Sea  and  to  the  Persian  Gulf. 
By  the  Anglo-Turkish  Convention,  England  has  taken  upon 
herself  heavy  responsibilities.     But  if  we  had  not  effected  that 
arrangement,  the  Sultan,  like  Shere  Ali,  despairing  of  help  from 
and,   would  have  thrown  himself — reluctantly,  no  doubt, 
but   still  he  would   have  thrown   himself — into  the   arms  of 
Russia  j  and  whatever  the  result  of  such  a  bargain  would  have 
n  to  the  people,  the  greedy  pashas  would  have  been  secured 
in  their  pleasures  and  possessions.     We  had,  therefore,  either 
to  accept  the  position  or  permit  it  to  pass  into  the  possession 
of  a  rival  who,  with  such  a  leverage  in  the  centre  of  two  con- 
tinents, could  not  only  have  imperilled  our  Empire  in  India, 
authority    in   Europe.     We   have  often   entered  into 
with  other  nations  entailing  equally  onerous  obligations. 
bound  to  defend   Greece  against  Turkey;  Portugal 
lin  j  Belgium   against   France  and  Germany.     We 
und  to  defend  Denmark,  and  with  culpable  cowardice 
•  d  the  res]  onsibility.    Under  a  stringent  Treaty  we  are 
intain  the  independence  of  Sweden  and  Norway. 
lould  attempt  to   lease   the  fisheries  in    Swedish 
turage  on  N  ian  soil,  this  country  is  to  be 

(,  and  any  attempt  on   her  part  to  infringe 


Joseph  Cowen  on  Foreign  Policy.         2 1 1 

upon  the  Scandinavian  territory  we  are  under  engagement  to 
resist  by  force  of  arms. 

We  are  parties  to  other  Treaties,  many  of  them  quite  as  risky 
as  the  one  we  have  recently  entered  into  with  Turkey ;  and  few 
of  them  offer  such  prospect  of  achieving  such  beneficial  results 
as  may  spring  from  the  Anglo-Turkish  Convention.  In  Asia 
Minor  there  are  700,000  square  miles  of  some  of  the  finest 
land  in  the  world,  washed  by  three  seas,  watered  by  large 
rivers,  and  possessing  spacious  ports  and  harbours.  The  soil 
is  capable  of  producing  grain,  fruit,  and  cotton  in  abundance, 
while  the  hills  and  the  valleys  abound  in  copper,  lead,  iron, 
and  silver.  Much  of  this  fair  and  fruitful  region  on  which  the 
seasons  have  lavished  all  their  beauty,  and  nature  all  its 
fragrance,  is  given  over  to  malaria  and  to  wild  beasts— is  the 
gathering-ground  of  predatory  Kurds,  and  the  camping-place 
of  wandering  Arabs.  The  spot  from  which  the  first  enterprise 
of  man  started — the  land  around  which  such  a  wealth  of  the 
romance,  the  poetry,  and  the  mystery  fastens,  which  has  in- 
fluenced the  destinies  and  formed  the  characters  of  not  one, 
but  many  people— is  now,  from  causes  partly  local  and  partly 
foreign,  doomed  to  endure  a  system  of  rule  which  is  little  less 
than  organised  anarchy.  We  send  our  surplus  population 
across  the  Atlantic  or  to  the  Antipodes.  There  is  no  reason 
why  they  should  not  find  a  field  for  their  labours,  and  an 
outlet  for  their  skill  in  a  luxuriant  land,  rich  with  golden  grain 
and  an  infinite  variety  of  plants  and  fruit  and  minerals,  within 
a  few  hours  of  our  own  shores.  What  has  hitherto  been  wanted 
is  security  for  life  and  property.  Under  the  protection  that 
might  be,  that  ought  to  be,  and  I  trust  will  be,  given 
by  this  Treaty,  these  obstacles  to  colonisation  would  be 
removed. 

English  capitalists  and  the  English  Government  have  always 
refused  seriously  to  consider  the  project  of  a  railway  through 
the  Euphrates  Valley,  because  they  declined  to  risk  such  large 
investments  in  a  country  over  which  they  had  not  sufficient 
control.      This  Treaty  ought  to,   and    I  think  will,   dispense 


Modern  Political  Orations. 


with   this   difficulty.      The   railway   scheme   is   described   by 
•partisans  as   Utopian  and  visionary,    but   that   is    a   kind   of 
which  has  grown  stale   and   obsolete.     It  is   not 
ears  ago  since  the  construction  of  the  Suez  Canal  was, 
>proval  of  English  engineers,  demonstrated  by  our 
Mr  Robert  Stephenson,  to  be  an  impossibility,  and 
laughed  at  in  the  House  of  Commons  by  Lord  Palmer- 
as  the  dream  of  a  crack-brained  Frenchman.     But  the 
nal  is,  nevertheless,  a  great  fact.     Last  year  there  passed 
through  it  between  sixteen  and  seventeen  hundred  ships  with  a 
of  nearly  three  million  tons,  and  thirteen  hundred 
of  the    sixteen    were    English   vessels  —  a    proof   of   the 
mportance    of    this   waterway   to   this   country.      When   the 
heme  of  making  a  railway  across   the   American  Continent 
■;  first  promulgated,  it  was  met  with  characteristic  derision, 
and  yet  now  the  line  between  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans, 
distance  of  nearly  2,800  miles,  carries  thousands  of  people  in 
of  a  year.     Russians  in  these  matters  are  somewhat 
r  and  more  enterprising  than  some  Englishmen  are.      By 
i  combined  effect  of  river  and  railway,  canal  and  lake,  they 
nearly  united  the  basins  of  the  Baltic,  the  Black  Sea,  and 
pian.     They  have  revived  the  old  project  of  diverting 
the  course  of  the  Oxus,  and  by  their  system  of  land  and  water 
;e,  commencing  at  Riga  and  Warsaw,  and  terminating 
t  far  from  our   Indian  frontier,  they  hope  to  secure  a  pre- 
ng  influence  in  Central  Asia.     The  Euphrates  Valley 
Quid  be  1,200  miles  long,  and  the  cost  of  its  con- 
mated  at  ,£12,000,000 — a  comparatively  small 
1  the  amounts  invested  in  railways  in  this  country  are 
I  know  no  more  of  the  future  than  a  prophet,  but 
be  1  a  venture  to  hazard  the  prediction 

will  be  made,  and  made,  too,  through   English 
i  work  will  not  only  act  as  a  breakwater 
ion,   and  a    bulwark    for  the   Indian 
mad<    ;h.    fulcrum  for  raising  politically  and 
-pie,  and   making  the  early  seat  of 


Joseph  Cowen  on  Foreign  Policy.  2  1 


o 


arts  and  refinement,  the  theatre  of  some  of  the  most 
momentous  events  in  history,  once  more  bloom  and  blossom 
as  the  rose.  My  contention,  in  a  sentence,  is  that  our 
external  Empire  should  be  maintained  and  defended,  as  much 
in  the  interests  of  freedom  and  civilisation  as  in  the  interests 
of  England  and  its  distant  dependencies ;  that  we  cannot 
honourably  and  without  danger  shrink  from  the  responsibilities 
that  our  history  and  our  position  as  the  oldest,  and  one  of  the 
chief  of  free  States  in  the  world,  entail  upon  us ;  that  the 
security  of  our  dominions  in  the  East  and  the  equilibrium  of 
Europe  were  threatened  by  the  advance  of  Russia  on  Constan- 
tinople ;  that  the  action  this  country  took,  although  it  was  open 
to  objection  in  its  details,  was  necessary,  and  in  the  main 
judicious  ;  that  it  largely  contributed  to  thwart  the  dangerous, 
the  aggressive  designs  of  Russia ;  has  protected  our  present, 
and  made  provision  for  our  obtaining  an  improved  way  to  India; 
may  help  to  secure  better  government  for  Turkey  ;  and  has 
strengthened  the  influence  of  England  in  the  councils  of 
Europe. 

It  is  impossible  now  to  discuss  at  length  the  policy  pursued 
in  Afghanistan,  but  I  wish  to  express  shortly  the  views  I  enter- 
tain on  the  action  that  has  been  taken  in  that  country.  Our 
Indian  possessions  are  encircled  by  the  ocean  on  the  south,  the 
south-east,  and  south-west.  On  the  east  they  are  protected  by 
high  ranges  of  mountains  and  all  but  impenetrable  forests. 
These  mountains  and  these  forests  are  occupied  by  savage 
tribes,  who,  although  capable  of  great  annoyance,  as  the  Nagas 
are  now,  are  incapable  of  inflicting  any  real  political  or  military 
injury  upon  us.  On  the  north  and  north-west  our  frontiers  are 
the  bases  of  the  Himalaya  and  the  Sulieman  Mountains.  It  is 
an  accepted  canon  in  military  science  that  a  Power  which  holds 
the  mountains  and  possesses  what  in  soldiers'  parlance  is  called 
the  "issues  of  the  frontier,"  has  an  enormous  advantage  over 
the  Power  which  occupies  the  plains.  This  is  an  opinion 
which  will  scarcely  be  contested.  These  mountains  are 
peopled  by  fierce,  warlike,  and  turbulent  tribes,  who  have  no 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

special  love  for  England,  but  have  just  as  much   dislike  to 
each  other.     They  live  partly  by  pasturage,  partly  by  plunder. 
They  fi"ht  for  their  own  hand.     The  only  State  that  has  an 
organised  Government  of  any  strength  is  Afghanistan.     As  long 
as  these  passes  and  mountains,  and  the  country  generally,  were 
occupied  by  tribes  of  this  character,  no  danger  to  India  was  to 
anticipated.     Partly  brigands,   partly  soldiers,   they  could 
annoy  us,  and  levy  blackmail  on  the  adjoining  inhabitants,  yet 
they  could  not  seriously  disturb  or   threaten    our   authority. 
But  it  is  the  accepted  opinion  of  men  of  all  parties— statesmen 
and  soldiers  alike— that  should  this  strong  military  position 
ever   pass   into   the   hands   of  a   powerful   Government,    our 
exposed  frontier  would  lay  us  open  to  serious  danger.     For 
years  Afghanistan,  if  not  friendly,  has  at  least  been  neutral ; 
and  there  was  an  understanding  between  Russia  and  England 
that  that  country  should  be  considered   as  outside  of  their 
mutual  interest  and  influence — that  it  should  be  regarded  as  a 
neutral  territory,  both  being  concerned  in  upholding  its  inde- 
pendence and  neutrality.     The  advance  of  Russia,  however,  to 
the  East  so  alarmed  the  late  Ameer  that  he  urged,  some  years 
the  English  Government  to  enter  into  closer  alliance  with 
him  than  then  existed.     He  pointed  out  that  Russia  was  ad- 
vancing, and  did  not  conceal  his  fear  that,  unless   he  were 
protected  by  England,  the  same  fate  would  overtake  him  that 
had  overtaken  many  another  Asiatic  ruler.     Our  Government  at 
that  time  did  not  share  Shere  Ali's  fears,  and  refused  to  com- 
ply with  the  requests  that  he  preferred.     He  became  discon- 
tented ;  and  from  having  a  friendly  leaning  towards  England, 
now   began  to  lean   towards  Russia,  and   to  open  nego- 
tiations   with    the    Russian     commanders     in    the    adjacent 
provint  • 

When   Russia's   objects   in   Turkey   were  thwarted  by  this 

:itry,  she  retaliated  by  striving  to  set  our  Indian  frontiers  in 

No  one  (  an  complain  of  her  doing  so;  it  is  what  we 

have    done,    probably,    in    like    circumstances.       She 

ed  to  our  licet  being  in  the  Sea  of  Marmora,  and  she 


Joseph  Cowen  on  Foreign  Policy.  215 

thought  she  would  disturb  us  and  distract  our  attention  by 
assuming  a  threatening  attitude  in  Afghanistan.  A  Russian 
mission  was  sent.  It  was  received  with  ostentatious  displays 
of  sympathy  by  the  Ameer,  and,  as  far  as  he  was  able,  he 
proclaimed  that  in  future  he  would  be  the  firm  friend  and  ally 
of  Russia,  and  if  not  the  enemy,  at  least  not  the  friend,  of  this 
country.  If  not  in  words,  the  substance  of  his  declaration  and 
his  action  at  the  reception  of  the  Russian  mission  amounted  to 
this.  Our  Government  required  that,  as  he  had  received  a 
mission  from  Russia,  he  should  also  accept  one  from  Eng- 
land. He  refused  to  do  it,  and  we  attempted  to  force  the 
mission  upon  him.  It  is  unnecessary  to  repeat  the  facts 
which  are  in  the  recollection,  no  doubt,  of  all  present. 
Shere  Ali's  refusal  led  to  war,  and  after  a  small  show  of 
resistance  he  fled  from  Cabul,  and  shortly  afterwards  died. 
With  his  son,  who  was  made  his  successor,  we  concluded 
peace,  and  entered  into  a  Treaty.  By  that  Treaty  England 
got  the  right  of  sending  agents  to  certain  specified  districts 
in  Afghanistan,  and  also  obtained  an  important  frontier. 
Instead  of  having  the  base  of  the  mountains  as  a  border, 
we  had  the  mountains  themselves.  By  that  Treaty  the  country 
should  stand.  The  frontier  secured  to  us  by  it  should  be 
maintained.  A  most  lamentable,  melancholy,  and  disastrous 
incident  occurred  in  the  autumn — the  murder  of  Sir  Louis 
Cavagnari  and  his  suite.  But  that  ought  not  to  divert  us 
from  the  settled  policy  that  was  developed  and  expressed  by 
the  Treaty  of  Gandamuk.  I  am  in  favour  of  holding  the 
possessions  we  have,  but  we  want  no  more.  We  have  pro- 
vinces plenty  and  to  spare.  Even  if  we  possessed  Afghanistan, 
it  would  be  only  a  perplexing  acquisition  ;  but  supposing  it 
were  a  profitable  one,  it  would  be  contrary  to  the  wishes  and 
feelings  of  the  Afghans  to  come  under  British  rule,  and  I  am 
altogether  opposed  to  enforcing  it  upon  them.  The  Treaty 
that  Yakoob  Khan  entered  into  embodies  the  policy  of  the 
country,  and  it  should  be  upheld. 

I  have  discussed    principles    and    not  personalities.     I  am 


216  Modern  Political  Orations. 

not   interested  either  in  defending  or   in  decrying   any  body 

All    I    have   been    concerned    for    is    to    state    the 

ounds  on  which  I  have  been  led  to  support  the  assertion 

of  what  I   believe   to   be   Liberal   principles    and  the  main- 

ince  of  a  national  policy.     It  is  easy  to  find  fault,   and 

ier  still  to  impute  bad  motives  to  your  opponents— 

"  A  man  must  serve  his  time  to  every  trade 
Save  censure.     Critics  all  are  ready  made." 

The  shortcomings  of  the  Government  are  as  apparent  to  me  as 

ie  fiercest  opponents  of  their  foreign  policy.     They  have 

:i    been   weak,    sometimes   vacillating,    not    unfrequently 

but  I  wish  to  judge  them  as  I  would  like  them  to  judge 

or  the  party  with  which  I  am  identified,  under  like  circum- 

ices.     They  have  been  beset  by  a  succession  of  difficulties 

and  dangers  such  as  never  before  encompassed  an  Administra- 

in  our  times.     Apart  from  the  inherent  intricacies  of  the 

tions  they  have  had  to  deal  with,  they  have  had  to  contend 

with  the  rival  interests  of  other  Powers,  a  strong  opposition  at 

and    some   divisions    in    their    own    party.     It    is   not 

.,  it  is  simply  justice,  to  remember  this.     We  should 

that,  in  dealing  with  foreign  affairs,  there  are 

alw.t ,  matters  that  cannot  be  explained.     All  Ministries 

upon  at  times  to  act  upon  information  that  they 

make  public — 

"  What's  done  we  partly  may  compute, 
But  know  not  what's  resisted." 

ven  in  party  warfare,  to  drive  your  attacks  too 
nunciation  usually  provokes  reaction.     The 

h  id  the  support  of  large  majorities  in 

t ,  is  accused  of  not  only  being  wrong, 

criminal— not  only  of  being    mischievous  and 

olent  and  malicious.     They  are 

!  roamed  round  the  world  with  incendiary 

cut  upon  turning  our  frontiers  into  blazing  bastions 


Joseph  Cowen  on  Foreign  Policy.  2 1 7 

fringed  with  fire.  The  accusation  is,  in  my  judgment,  not  only 
incorrect  but  foolish.  The  indictment  I  would  prefer  against 
them  would  be  of  the  very  opposite  character.  I  think  they 
have  acted  with  tameness  and  timidity.  They  have  been  six 
years  in  office,  and  the  first  half  of  that  time  presented  them  in 
their  normal  and  natural  character.  An  entire  absence  of 
political  legislation,  some  mild  but  useful  social  measures,  a 
free  and  easy  administration,  were  their  characteristics.  Taking 
warning  by  their  predecessors,  their  great  effort  was  to  avoid 
needlessly  offending  anyone.  Events  that  they  could  not  fore- 
see, circumstances  which  they  could  not  control,  have  driven 
them  into  warlike  action.  People  are  easily  misled  by  a  cry, 
but  no  man  who  has  examined  the  facts  for  himself  can  contend 
that  the  English  Government  started  the  conflict  in  Eastern 
Europe.  Whoever  else  began  it — whether  it  was  the  Russian 
emissaries  or  the  Turkish  people  themselves — certainly  Lord 
Derby,  who  was  then  the  Foreign  Minister  of  this  country,  did 
not  do  so.  He  pressed  the  Sultan  to  settle  the  dispute  with 
his  subjects,  and  if  that  could  not  be  done,  he  urged  him,  with 
somewhat  cynical  indifference,  to  suppress  the  insurrection. 
When  that  failed,  he  strove  to  localise  the  war.  It  might  be 
said  that  England  should  have  obeyed  the  three  Emperors, 
and  signed  the  ukase  which  the  Imperial  league  issued  from 
Berlin,  and  if  Turkey  refused  to  comply  with  their  demands 
she  should  have  been  coerced — in  other  words,  that  we  should 
have  gone  to  war  against  her.  It  is  a  matter  of  opinion,  but, 
in  the  judgment  of  men  familiar  with  the  East,  had  such  a  course 
been  pursued,  the  Turks  would  have  turned  their  backs  to  the 
wall,  and  with  all  the  disci  plined  fanaticism  of  their  race,  they 
would  have  fought  against  Christians  and  coalesced  Europe  for 
their  country  and  their  faith.  The  resistance  that  was  given  in 
Bosnia  to  the  advance  of  a  friendly  Hungarian  army  strengthens 
this  view. 

But  if  the  Berlin  Memorandum  was  refused,  England 
assented  and  took  part  in  the  Conference  of  Constantinople. 
However  we  may  condemn  the  course  taken  by  the  Govern- 


Modem  Political  Orations. 

ent  on  the  Eastern  difficulties,  no  man  can  fairly  say  that 
.  them.     The  Afghan  war,  for  which  they  are  more 
ponsible,  was  the  outcome  of  the  action  of  Russia 
'  We  may  fairly  criticise  the  policy  of  the  Govern- 
no  one,  I  think,  can  say  that  they  sought  a  cause  of 
I  do  not  contend  that  foreign  politics  are  outside  the 
ain  of  popular  and  Parliamentary  criticism.     On  the  con- 
I  regret  that  for  many  years  the  English  people  have 
ttle  and  such  fluctuating  heed  to  foreign  questions, 
t  I  do  say  that  such  delicate  topics  should  not  be  made  the 
Id  of  party.     There  are  two   modes  of  conducting  a 
ion— one  to  elicit  information,  to  sustain,  to  direct  and 
uide  the  Executive  ;  another  to  win   a  party  victory  out  of 
•rnnient  troubles.     If  the  Government  of  the  country  is 
in   difficulties  abroad,    the    nation    is    in   difficulties,  and   it 
much  against    my  national  pride    as    against   my 
hunting  for  arguments  against  my  poli- 
nts  amongst  the  stiffening  corpses  of  your  fellow- 
men.     On  this  subject  I  will  quote  the  opinion  of  the 
M.   I  'hiers,  when  discussing  the  attitude  taken  in  France  by 
the  Orleanists  and  the   Legitimists  during  the  Crimean  War. 
i  French  statesman,  speaking  to  Mr  Nassau,  Senior, 

of  parly  warfare  allow  me  to  call  my  opponent  a  villain, 

low  him  to  be  honest  ;  to  abuse  his  measures  though  I  know  them 

lack   his  arguments  with  sophistry  and  even  with  false- 

l  this  my  opponent   may  do   to  me,  and  therefore  it  is  fair  that  I 

•"  In m.      Bui    we  must  both  of  us  abstain  from  using  as  our 

d  th<  relations  of  our  country.    In  these  relations  an  error 

al.     We  may  quarrel  amongst  ourselves;  we  must  be  united 

I    nil  not  in  to  the  benefits  of  party  government. 

.  in   a  large  measure,  owes  its  stability  to  such 

ion.  .  m  liv  serious  and  prolonged  struggles 

1  by  party  vigilance.     The  education  gained 

made  the  victories  permanent.      It  would 

,    ie>   replace   a  system   that   has   become  so 


Joseph  Cowen  on  Foreign  Policy.  219 

acclimatised  to  our  constitutional  life.  But  party  spirit,  pushed 
too  far,  crushes  individuality  of  thought,  and  cripples  independ- 
ent energy.  Tt  impairs  the  disciplinary  value  of  the  suffrage 
by  destroying  the  voter's  sense  of  responsibility.  It  lowers  the 
character  of  the  Parliament  by  converting  independent  repre- 
sentatives into  political  automatons,  whose  value  consists  in 
the  unreflecting  vigour  with  which  they  shout  the  party  shibbo- 
leth. On  points  of  procedure  and  of  detail,  a  member  may 
obey  the  party  managers  without  injury  or  disadvantage;  but 
when  great  national  issues  are  at  stake,  a  man  forfeits  his  own 
respect,  and  becomes  a  recreant  to  his  own  country  who  ignores 
his  convictions,  and  submits  to  think  by  deputy  or  to  act  by 
order.  Some  of  our  friends,  I  think,  act  somewhat  incon- 
sistently on  this  subject.  One  of  their  chief  causes  of  complaint 
against  the  present  Parliament  is  its  want  of  independence. 
They  charge  it  with  being  an  unthinking  party  machine,  and 
they  applauded  the  action  of  Lord  Derby  and  Lord  Carnarvon 
when  they  separated  themselves  from  their  colleagues  and 
announced  their  dissent  from  their  policy.  But  when  Liberals 
on  the  other  side,  acting  from  equally  high  motives,  separate 
themselves  from  their  leaders,  they  are  censured,  and  in  some 
instances  ostracised.  What  is  accounted  as  commendable 
independence  on  the  one  side  is  condemned  as  an  exhibition 
of  fractious  self-will  on  the  other. 

There  are  in  the  House  of  Commons  some  thirty  or  forty 
members  who,  more  or  less,  had  supported  the  policy  the 
Government  had  pursued  on  foreign  questions.  But  their 
numbers  possibly  would  have  been  larger  if  vote  by  ballot  had 
been  in  operation  in  the  House.  Their  action,  however,  in 
this  Parliament  is  only  in  keeping  with  the  action  of  other 
sections  of  the  Liberal  party  in  previous  Parliaments.  In  the 
last  Parliament  the  Nonconformists  and  Radicals  were  dis- 
satisfied with  the  way  the  Government  dealt  with  elementary 
education.  The  Irish  members  were  discontented  with  the  < 
manner  in  which  they  dealt  with  university  education.  The 
hostility  of  Irish  representatives  to   the  Irish   University    the 


220 


Modem  Political  Orations. 


scheme  of  the  Ministry  led  to  their  defeat  in  Parliament.     The 
opposition  of  Nonconformists  did  not  cause  the  defeat,  but  it 
:ertainly  contributed  to  it  at  the  poll.     Yet  the  Ministers  who 
were   responsible   for  this  educational   legislation   are   to-day 
amongst  the  trusted  leaders  of  the  party.     In  the  Parliament 
re  that  stronger  differences  were  developed.     Lord  Russell 
introduced  a  Reform  Bill,  proposing  to  give  a  vote  to  every  man 
who  lived  in  a  house  of  the  value  of  £i.     This  moderate 
,sal  was  objected  to  by  a  section  of  Liberals,  who  de- 
nounced it   as   revolutionary.     Their   opposition    led   to   the 
defeat   of  Earl    Russell's   Government,    and    the    subsequent 
nation  of  his  Government.     Lord  Russell  himself  describes 
this  party  as  consisting  of  three  gangs — the  timid,  the  selfish, 
and  those  who  were  both  timid  and  selfish.     For  the  first,  he 
said,  he  had  pity;  for  the  second  indignation;    for  the  third 
contempt.     During  all  his  long  career,   he  declared  that  he 
never  encountered  a  body  of  politicians  so  little  influenced  by 
principle  or  animated  by  a  patriotic  spirit.     The  leader  of  the 
party  he  described  as  a  man  "sagacious,  bold,  and  turbulent 
of  wit."     Vet  this  same  leader  was  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer 
in  the  last  Ministry,  and  is  now  one  of  the  ablest  of  the  Liberal 
leaders  in  the  House  of  Commons.     Another  difference  took 
e  in  the  same  Parliament  which  had  more  beneficial  results. 
The  '  lonservative  Government  proposed  that  household  suffrage 
be  made   the   basis   of  the    Reform    Bill.     This   was 
obje<  ted  to  by  the  official  Liberals  of  the  day,  who  wished  to 
a  rate-paying  franchise  instead  of  a  household.     A  number 
i  :als  met   in  the  tea-room  of  the  Parliament   House, 
1  that  they  approved  of  the  principle  of  the  Government 
Bill,  and  resolved  that  if  the  Ministry  would  give  them  an 
that  they  would  stand  by  that  principle  they  (the 
Is)  would   support  them.     The   Ministry   did  give  the 
dicals  did  stand  to  the  arrangement;  and  the 
was  that   household  suffrage  became  the  law  notwith- 
opposition  of  the  official  Liberals  of  the  time. 
lamite  defection  drove  the  Liberal  Government  from 


Joseph  Cowen  on  Foreign  Policy.  2  2 1 

office,  and  the  tea-room  defection  succeeded  in  making  a 
household  suffrage  the  law  of  the  land.  There  has  never  been 
a  Parliament  since  the  Reform  Bill  where  instances  of  the  kind 
have  not  occurred. 

The  policy  on  foreign  questions  that  I  and  others  in  the 
House  of  Commons  have  defended  is  the  old  policy  of  this 
country.  I  have  no  wish  to  shelter  myself  behind  big  names 
or  to  shake  myself  clear  of  the  slightest  responsibility.  I  have 
too  often  been  in  a  minority  to  be  afraid  of  being  in  that 
position  again.  I  know  what  it  is  to  be  in  the  right  with  two 
or  three.  But  the  policy  I  have  expounded  to-night,  and  which 
I  have  supported  in  Parliament,  is  the  policy  that  was  advocated 
by  Mackintosh  and  Brougham,  Horner  and  Lord  Durham ; 
it  is  a  policy  that  received  the  approval  of  the  philosophic 
Liberals,  Molesworth,  Mill,  Grote,  and  Buller.  It  is  the  old 
Radical  policy  that  was  expounded  by  Major  Cartwright,  Lord 
Dundonald,  William  Cobbett,  and  General  Thompson  ;  and  it 
was  the  common  faith  of  Radicals  when  I  first  became 
interested  in  political  affairs.  It  is  not  the  faith,  I  know,  of 
the  "  Manchester  School " ;  but  it  is  certainly  of  the  early 
Radicals.  I  would  quote  from  the  speeches  and  writings  of 
the  men  whose  names  I  have  cited  numerous  extracts  to 
confirm  my  statement ;  but  I  will  content  myself  with  citing, 
in  support  of  my  position,  a  few  words  from  a  statesman  whose 
name  will,  in  every  Liberal  assembly,  be  received  with  favour. 
Earl  Russell  for  fifty  years  played  a  leading  and  important  part 
in  the  history  of  this  country.  No  one  has  rendered  the 
Liberal  cause  more  effective  service  than  he  has  done,.  He 
has  not  boxed  the  political  compass  and  seryed  all  sides  in 
turn.  He  ended  as  he  began — a  moderate  and  consistent 
advocate  of  Liberal  principles.  In  his  last  work  Lord  Russell 
expressed  the  strong  regret  he  felt  at  having  retired,  as  he  did, 
from  the  leadership  after  the  defeat  of  the  party  in  1867. 
The  reason  why  he  regretted  having  retired  was  the  policy  the 
party  was  led  to  pursue  on  foreign  matters.  The  policy  that 
the  present  Opposition  has  supported  is  the  policy  of  the  late 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

Lord  Russell  commended  their  domestic  legis- 
sured  in  very  strong  and  very  emphatic  terms 
on  in  foreign  matters.     These  are  his  words— 

"  I  had  no  reason  to  suppose,  when  I  surrendered  the  leadership  of  the 

e  (the  Liberal  Prime  Minister)  was  less  attached  than  I  was  to 

ur,   less  proud  than   I   was  of  the  achievements  of  our 

rid  land,  that  he  disliked  the  extension  of  our  Colonies,  and 

res  he  promoted  would  tend  to  reduce  the  great  and  glorious 

wl  ich  lie  was  put  in  charge  to  a  manufactory  of  cotton  and 

[  a  market  for  cheap  goods,  that  the  army  and  navy  would  be 

:;rv  savings  to  a  standard  of  weakness  and  inefficiency.     By 

icy  he  has  tarnished  the  national  honour,  injured  the  national 

.  .ind  lowered  the  national  character." 

These  are  not  my  words.     I  never  used  language  anything 

like  so  strong,  but  they  are  the  words  of  the  honoured  and 

trusted  kader  of  the  Liberal  party  for  the  better  part  of  half  a 

try.     I  am  not  a  conventional  adherent  of  the  fashionable 

:a!ism  of  the  hour,  but  I  am  a  life-long  Radical  by  con- 

sympathy,  training,  and  taste.     I  am  concerned  for 

son;  nore  and  higher  than  the  transference  of  the  offices 

from  one  set  of  men  to  another.     I  will  not  trim  my 

I  faith  to  catch  the  passing  breeze,  however  pleasant. 

I,  unpensioned,  no  man's  heir  or  slave,"  I  neither 

for  nor  r:ire  for  the  honours,  the  favours,  or  the  patronis- 

•  approval  lisped  "in  liquid  lines  mellifluously  bland  "  of  any 

party.     There  is  only  one  consolation  for  a  public  man,  and 

iat  is  the  approval  of  his  conscience  and  a  sense  of  duty  done. 

I   will  not  knowingly  or  consciously  offend  any  man  by  either 

.  I  nit  if  I  am  placed  in  a  position  where  I  must 

•ak,  I  will  speak  what  1  believe  to  be  the  truth,  temperately, 

lly,  but  plainly.     Whatever  my  lot  in  life  may  be,  whether 

member  of  the  British  Parliament  again  or  not,  I 

will    labour   for   the   advancement   of  Radical   principles,  and 

■  Liberal  cause  according  to  my  lights  and  to  the  best 

But  while-  1  wear  the  party  uniform  I  will  never 

I  plu  h.      I   will  take  any  position,  however  humble,  in 

.  but   it   will  In-  as  a  volunteer  and  not  as  a  lackey. 

le's  welfare  is  the  supreme  law,  and  our 


Joseph  Cowen  on  Foreign  Policy.         223 

country's  honour  and  safety  the  first  consideration.  But  I 
prefer  national  interests  to  the  triumph  of  a  faction.  I  am 
weak  enough  to  own  that  I  believe  in  the  now  derided  obliga- 
tion of  patriotism  and  the  duty  of  the  individual  to  the  State, 
as  one  of  the  first  principles  planted  in  the  human  breast.  I 
know  my  country's  defects,  but  I  cannot  join  with  those  who 
exaggerate  and  parade  them.  The  land  of  Michael  Angelo 
and  of  Dante  was  not  destitute  of  energy ;  but  when  she  per- 
sistently proclaimed  herself  to  be  miserable  and  infamous 
through  the  mouth  of  Machiavelli,  the  world  took  her  at  her 
word  and  trod  upon  her.  Englishmen  disposed  to  decry  their 
native  land  may  remember  with  advantage  the  experience  of 
Italy.  It  is  ours  to  hand  down  to  posterity,  undimmed  and 
undiminished,  the  priceless  heritage  of  a  free  State,  the  imper- 
ceptible aggregations  of  centuries,  won  by  the  struggles  of  a 
heroic  national  life.  It  was  planted,  has  been  reared  and 
watered  by  the  sweat,  the  tears,  the  blood  of  some  of  the 
noblest  of  men.  She  has  carried  liberty  and  laws,  art  and 
thought,  in  triumph  round  the  globe.  If  England  is  old,  she  is 
not  decrepit,  and  has  still  within  her  daring  and  elasticity. 


RIGHT  HON.  W.  E.  GLADSTONE 
ON  THE   BEACONSFIELD 
MINISTRY. 

Edinburgh,  March  17TH,  1880. 

to  this  date  Mr  Gladstone  had  already  addressed  the  electors 

if  Midlothian  on  three  great  occasions.     He  now  opened  his  famous  Mid- 

an   Campaign  in  earnest,    taking  the  Government  to  task  with  such 

lergy  as  to  force  his  convictions  upon  the  people.     The  place 

ofm<  this  occasion  was  the  Music  Hall,  Mr  Duncan  M'Laken, 

M.  P.,  presiding.] 

Gi  n  1 11  men,— When  I  last  had  the  honour  of  addressing  you 

in  this  Hall,  I  endeavoured,  in  some  degree,  to  open  the  great 

which   I   was  in  hopes  would,  in  conformity  with  what 

I   in. iv  call  constitutional  usage,   then  have  been   brought   at 

before  you.     The  arguments  which  we  made  for  a  dis- 

tion    were   received   with   the    usual    contempt,    and    the 

Parliament  was  summoned  to  attempt,   for  the  first  time  in 

our  history,  the  regular  business  of  a  seventh  session.     I  am 

ow  to  argue  on  the  propriety  of  this  course,  because, 

u  lure  in  the  capital  of  the  county  and  of  Scotland, 

us  to  go  straight  to  the  very  heart  of  the  matter, 

and.  amidst  the  crowd  of  topics  that  rush  upon  the  mind,  to 

upon  some  of  those  which  you  will  judge  to  be  most 

ml  mosl   intimately  connected  with  the  true  merits 

diat  is  before  us. 

LSI  tl  liition  has  come,  ami  I  postpone  the  con- 


W.  E.  Gladstone  on  the  Beacons  field  Ministry.  225 

sideration  of  the  question  why  it  has  come,  the  question  how 
it  has  come,  on  which  there  are  many  things  to  be  said.  It 
has  come,  and  you  are  about  to  give  your  votes  upon  an 
occasion  which,  allow  me  to  tell  you,  entails  not  only  upon  me, 
but  upon  you,  a  responsibility  greater  than  you  ever  had  to 
undergo.  I  believe  that  I  have  the  honour  of  addressing  a  mixed 
meeting,  a  meeting  principally  and  very  largely  composed  of 
freeholders  of  the  county,  but  in  which  warm  and  decided 
friends  are  freely  mingled  with  those  who  have  not  declared 
in  our  favour,  or  even  with  those  who  may  intend  to  vote 
against  us. 

Now,  Gentlemen,  let  me  say  a  word  in  the  first  place  to  those 
whom  I  must  for  the  moment  call  opponents.  I  am  not  going 
to  address  them  in  the  language  of  flattery.  I  am  not  going 
to  supplicate  them  for  the  conferring  of  a  favour.  I  am  not 
going  to  appeal  to  them  on  any  secondary  or  any  social  ground. 
I  am  going  to  speak  to  them  as  Scotchmen  and  as  citizens  ; 
I  am  going  to  speak  to  them  of  the  duty  that  they  owe  to  the 
Empire  at  this  moment ;  I  am  going  to  speak  to  them  of  the 
condition  of  the  Empire,  of  the  strength  of  the  Empire,  and 
of  the  honour  of  the  Empire ;  and  it  is  upon  these  issues  that 
I  respectfully  ask  for  their  support.  I  am  glad  that,  notwith- 
standing my  Scotch  blcod,  and  notwithstanding  the  association 
of  my  father  and  my  grandfather  with  this  country,  it  is  open 
to  our  opponents,  if  they  like,  to  describe  me  as  a  stranger ; 
because  I  am  free  to  admit  that  I  stand  here  in  consequence 
of  an  invitation,  and  in  consequence  of  treatment  the  most 
generous  and  the  most  gratifying  that  ever  was  accorded  to 
man.  And  I  venture  to  assure  every  one  of  my  opponents, 
that  if  I  beg  respectfully  to  have  some  credit  for  upright  motives, 
that  credit  I  at  once  accord  to  them.  I  know  very  well  they 
are  not  accustomed  to  hear  it  given  me ;  I  know  very  well  that 
in  the  newspapers  which  they  read  they  will  find  that  violent 
passion,  that  outrageous  hatred,  that  sordid  greed  for  office, 
are  the  motives,  and  the  only  motives,  by  which  I  am  governed. 
Many  of  these  papers  constitute,   in  some  sense,   their  daily 

P 


226  Modem  Political  Orations. 

food;  but  I  have  such  faith  in  their  intelligence,  and  in  the 
ealthiness  of  their  constitution  as  Scotchmen,  that  I  believe 
that  many  of  them  will,  by  the  inherent  vigour  of  that  con- 
stitution, correct  and  neutralise  the  poison  thus  administered; 
will  consent  to  meet  me  upon  equal  grounds,  and  will  listen 
to  the  appeal  which  I  make. 

Th  al  which  I  make  to  them  is  this :  If  my  position 

rious  one,  their  position  is  serious  too.     My  alle- 
ions  have  been  before  you  for  a  length  of  time.     I  will  not 
in  read  to  a  Midlothian  audience  the  letter  in  which 
I  first  accepted  this  candidature.     By  every  word  of  that  letter 
I  abide;  in  support  of  every  allegation  which  that  letter  con- 
tains,  I  am   ready   to   bring   detailed   and   conclusive   proof. 
These  allegations— I  say  to  you,  Gentlemen,  to  that  portion 
of  my  audience— these  allegations  are  of  the   most    serious 
character.     I  admit,  as  freely  as  you  can  urge,  that  if  they  be 
unfounded,  then  my  responsibility— nay,  my  culpability— before 
my  country  cannot  be  exaggerated.     But,  on  the  other  hand, 
if  these  allegations  be  true— if  it  be  true  that  the  resources  of 
it  Britain  have  been  misused  ;  if  it  be  true  that  the  inter- 
national law  of  Europe  has  been  broken  ;  if  it  be  true  that  the 
■  if  this  country  has  been  broken  ;  if  it  be  true  that  the  good 
e  of  this  land  has  been  tarnished  and  defaced;   if  it  be 
that    its   condition   has   been    needlessly    aggravated   by 
-  hi  nil  useless,  and  wanton,  and  mischievous  in  them- 
then   your  responsibility  is  as  great  as  mine.     For  I 
fully  admit   that   in    1S74  you  incurred  no   great   or  special 
lility.     You   were  tired  of  the  Liberal  Government; 
satisfied  with  them.     [Cries  of"  No,  no  !"       Oh,  I 
■■!  >n  ;    I  am   addressing   my   opponents.      Scotchmen, 

I  much  as  Englishmen,  like  plain  speaking,  and 

II  11  you  some  proof  that  if  that  be  your  taste 
mr  to  meet  it  as   well   as  I  can;  and  I  thank  you 

nner  in   which,   by  your  kindly  attention, 
me  to  say  what  I  think  is  the  truth,  whether 
whether  it  be  not. 


W.  E.  Gladstone  on  the  Beaconsjicld  Ministry.   227 

Now  the  great  question  which  we  have  been  debating  for  the 
last  three  or  four  years— for  I  do  not  carry  back  the  pith  of 
what  I  have  principally  to  say  to  the  six  years  of  the  Govern- 
ment— is  the  question  of  the  policy  which  has  been  pursued 
during  that  time  ;  most  especially  by  far  the  policy  of  the  last 
two  years,  and  the  effect  of  that  policy  upon  the  condition 
of  the  country,  upon  the  legislation  of  the  country,  upon  the 
strength  of  the  Empire,  and,  above  all,  upon  the  honour  of 
the  Empire.  I  am  now  going  to  compare  the  conduct  of  the 
present  Government,  which  is  commended  to  you  as  masterly 
in  forethought  and  sagacity,  and  truly  English  in  spirit— I  am 
going  to  compare  it  with  the  conduct  of  the  last  Government, 
and  to  lay  before  you  the  proceedings  of  the  results.  It  so 
happens  that  their  histories  are  a  not  inconvenient  means  of 
comparison.  England,  as  you  are  aware,  has  been  involved  in 
many  guarantees.  I  said  England— do  not  be  shocked  ;  it  is 
the  shortest  word— Great  Britain  or  the  United  Kingdom  is 
what  one  ought  to  say.  The  United  Kingdom— the  British 
Empire  has  been  and  is  involved  in  many  guarantees  for  the 
condition  of  other  countries.  Among  others,  we  were  involved, 
especially  since  the  Peace  of  Paris,  but  also  before  the  Peace 
of  Paris,  in  a  guarantee  for  Turkey,  aiming  to  maintain  its 
integrity  and  its  independence ;  and  we  were  involved  in 
another  guarantee  for  Belgium,  aiming  to  maintain  its  integrity 
and  its  independence.  In  the  time  of  the  present  Government 
the  integrity  and  the  independence  of  Turkey  were  menaced — 
menaced  by  the  consequences  of  rank,  festering  corruption 
from  within.  In  the  time  of  the  late  Government  the  integrity 
and  independence  of  Belgium  were  not  less  seriously  menaced. 
We  had  been  living  in  perfect  harmony  and  friendship  with  two 
great  Military  States  of  Europe— with  Prussia  and  with  France. 
France  and  Prussia  came  into  conflict,  and  at  the  moment  of 
their  coming  into  conflict  a  document  was  revealed  to  us  which 
the  Ministers  of  those  two  States  had  had  in  their  hands. 
Whoever  was  its  author,  whoever  was  its  promoter,  that  is  no 
affair  of  mine— it  is  due  to  Prince  Bismarck  to  say  that  he  was 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

person  who  brought  it  to  light— but  they  had  in  their  hands 
iment  of  a  formal  character,  touching  a  subject  that 
considered  and  entertained.     And  that   bad   instrument 
an  instrument  for  the  destruction  of  the  freedom,  inde- 
ed integrity  of  Belgium.     Could  there  be  a  graver 
•  to  Europe  than  that  ? 

.',  as  a  State— not  like  Turkey,  the  scandal  of  the  world, 

the  danger  of  the  world  from  misgovernment,  and  from  the 

liorrible  degradation  it  inflicted  upon  its  subject  races — but  a 

country  which  was  a  marvel  to  all    Europe  for  the  peaceful 

e  of  the  rights  of  freedom,  and  for  progress  in  all  the 

ad  all  pursuits  that  tend  to  make  mankind  good  and  happy. 

.  this  country,  having  nothing  but  its  weakness  that  could 

nst  it,  with  its  four  or  five  millions  of  people,  was 

ly  pointed   out  by  somebody  and  indicated  to  be 

to  be  offered  up  as  a  sacrifice  to  territorial  lust  by 

or  other  of  those  Ministers  of  Powers  with  whom  we  were 

;  in  close  friendship  and  affection.     We  felt  called  upon 

to  enlist   ourselves   on   the    part    of   the    British    nation    as 

;  and  as  champions  of  the  integrity  and   independ- 

^rium.     And  if  we  had  gone  to  war,  we  should  have 

r  for  freedom,  we  should   have  gone  to  war  for 

right,   we  should  have  gone   to  war   to   save   human 

im  being  invaded  by  tyrannous  and  lawless  power. 

s  what  I  call  a  good  cause,  Gentlemen.     And  though  I 

nl  thru-  arc  no  epithets  too  strong,  if  you  could 

me  with  them,  that  I  will  not  endeavour  to  heap  upon 

■in  such  a  war  as  that,  while  the  breath  in  my  body 

ed  to  me,  I  am  ready  to  engage.     I  am  ready  to 

it,  I  idy  to  give  all  the  help  and  aid  I  can  to 

rry  this  country  into  it.     Well,  Gentlemen,  pledged 

and  independence  of  Belgium,  what  did 

to   Prussia  to  enter  into  a  new  and 

villi  us  to   resist  the    French   Empire,   if  the 

!  to  violate  the  sanctity  of  freedom  in 

1  to  France  to  enter  into  a  similar 


W.  E.  Gladstone  on  the  Beacons  fie  let  Ministry.   229 

Treaty  with  us  to  pursue  exactly  the  same  measures  against 
Prussia,  if  Prussia  should  make  the  like  nefarious  attempt. 
And  we  undertook  that,  in  concert  with  the  one,  or  in  concert 
with  the  other,  whichever  the  case  might  be,  we  would  pledge 
all  the  resources  of  this  Empire,  and  carry  it  into  war,  for  the 
purpose  of  resisting  mischief  and  maintaining  the  principles  ol 
European  law  and  peace. 

I  ask  you  whether  it  is  not  ridiculous  to  apply  the  doctrine 
or  the  imputation,  if  it  be  an  imputation,  that  we  belong  to  the 
"Manchester  School,"  or  to  a  Peace  Party — we  who  made 
these  engagements  to  go  to  war  with  France  if  necessary,  or  to 
go  to  war  with  Prussia,  if  necessary,  for  the  sake  of  the  inde 
pendence  of  Belgium  ?  But  now  I  want  you  to  observe  the 
upshot.  I  must  say  that,  in  one  respect,  we  were  very  inferior 
to  the  present  Government — very  inferior  indeed.  Our  ciphers, 
our  figures,  were  perfectly  contemptible.  We  took  nothing 
except  two  millions  of  money.  We  knew  perfectly  well  that 
what  was  required  was  an  indication,  and  that  that  indication 
would  be  quite  intelligible  when  it  was  read  in  the  light  of  the 
new  treaty  engagement  which  we  were  contracting ;  and  con- 
sequently we  asked  Parliament  to  give  us  two  millions  of  money 
for  the  sake  of  somewhat  enlarging  the  numbers  of  available 
soldiers,  and  we  were  quite  prepared  to  meet  that  contingency 
had  it  arrived.  The  great  man  who  directs  the  Councils  of  the 
German  Empire  (Bismarck)  acted  with  his  usual  promptitude. 
Our  proposal  went  to  him  by  telegraph,  and  he  answered  by 
telegraph,  "Yes,"  the  same  afternoon.  We  were  not  quite 
so  fortunate  with  France,  for  at  that  time  the  Councils  of 
France  were  under  the  domination  of  some  evil  genius  which 
it  is  difficult  to  trace,  and  needless  to  attempt  to  trace.  There 
was  some  delay  in  France — a  little  unnecessary  haggling — but 
after  two  or  three  days  France  also  came  into  this  engagement, 
and  from  that  moment  the  peace  of  Belgium  was  perfectly 
secured.  When  we  had  our  integrity  and  our  independence  to 
prote:t,  we  took  the  measures  which  we  believed  to  be  neces- 
sary and  sufficient  tor  that  protection ;  and  in  every  year  since 


23° 


Modern  Political  Orations. 


iose  measures,  Belgium,  not  unharmed  only,  but  strengthened 

been  carried  safely  and  unhurt  through  a  terrible 

.  has  pursued  her  peaceful  career,  rising  continually  in 

■  prosperity  and  happiness,  and  still  holding  out  an  example 

Europe  to  teach  the  nations  how  to  live. 
\\<      I       tlemen,  as  that  occasion  came  to  us  with  respect  to 
o  it  came  to  our  successors  with  respect  to  Turkey. 
.  did  they  manage  it  ?     They  thought  themselves  bound  to 
maintain  the  integrity  and  independence  of  Turkey,  and  they 
were  undoubtedly  bound  conditionally  to  maintain  it.     I  am 
not  now  going  into  the  question  of  right,  but  into  the  ques- 
tion of  the  adaptation  of  the  means  to  an  end.     These  are  the 
tlemen  who  are  set  before  you  as  the  people  whose  continu- 
e  in  office  it  is  necessary  to  maintain  to  attract  the  confid- 
i   of  Europe  ;    these   are   the   gentlemen  whom    patriotic 
associations  laud  to  the  skies  as  if  they  had  a  monopoly  of 
human  intelligence;  these  are  the  gentlemen  who  bring  you 
"Peace  with  Honour";  these  are  the  gentlemen  who  go  in 
ial    trains   to   attend   august  assemblies,  and  receive  the 
pliments  of  august  statesmen;    these  are  the  gentlemen 
who  for  all  these  years  have  been  calling  upon  you  to  pay  any 
number  of  millions  that  might  be  required  as  a  very  cheap  and 
;ii!"i(  ant  consideration  for  the  immense  advantages  that  you 
deri\<-  from  their  administration. 

I   want  you  to  know,  and  I  have  shown  you,  how 
maintain   integrity  and  independence,  and  how 
.  maintained  then.      I  ask  how  they  have  set  about  it. 
ntli  men,  on  their  own  showing,  they  have  done  wrong, 
it  out  of  their   own   mouths.     I  won't  go   to  Lord 
to  the  only  man  whose  authority  is  higher 
i  purpose  than    Lord   Derby's,  namely,  Lord  Beacons- 
you  plainly  that  what  the  Government  ought 
have  said  to  Russia,    "  You  shall  not 
ntlemen,  that  course  is  intelligible.    It  is  a 
pinion,  to  have  taken  up  arms  for  main- 
ly   of   Turkey   against    her    subject   races, 


W.  E.  Gladstone  on  the  Beaconsficld  Ministry.  231 

or  to  take  up  arms  against  what  the  Emperor  of  Russia 
believed  to  be  a  great  honour  to  humanity  in  going  to  apply  a 
remedy  to  these  m  ischiefs.  But  Lord  Beaconsfield  has  con 
fessed  in  a  public  speech  that  the  proper  course  for  the- 
Government  to  have  taken  was  to  have  planted  their  foot,  and 
to  have  said  to  the  Emperor  of  Russia :  "  Cross  not  the 
Danube;  if  you  cross  the  Danube,  expect  to  confront  the 
power  of  England  on  the  southern  shore."  Now,  Gentlemen, 
that  course  is  intelligible,  perfectly  intelligible ;  and  if  you  are 
prepared  for  the  responsibility  of  maintaining  such  an  integrity, 
and  such  an  independence,  irrespectively  of  other  considera- 
tions against  the  Christian  races  in  Turkey,  that  was  the 
course  for  you  to  pursue.  It  was  not  pursued,  because  the 
agitation,  which  is  called  the  Bulgarian  agitation,  was  too 
inconvenient  to  allow  the  Government  to  pursue  it,  because 
they  saw  that  if  they  did  that  which  Lord  Beaconsfield  now 
tells  us  it  would  have  been  right  to  do,  the  sentiment  of 
the  country  would  not  have  permitted  them  to  continue  to  hold 
their  office  ;  and  hence  came  that  vacillation,  hence  came  that 
ineptitude  of  policy  which  they  now  endeavour  to  cover  by 
hectoring  and  by  boasting,  and  which,  within  the  last  year  or 
two,  they  have  striven,  and  not  quite  unsuccessfully,  to  hide 
from  the  eyes  of  many  by  carrying  measures  of  violence  into 
other  lands,  if  not  against  Russia,  if  not  against  the  strong, 
yet  against  the  weak,  and  endeavouring  to  attract  to  them- 
selves the  credit  and  glory  of  maintaining  the  power  and 
influence  of  England. 

Well,  Gentlemen,  they  were  to  maintain  the  integrity  and 
independence  of  Turkey.  How  did  they  set  about  it?  They 
were  not  satisfied  with  asking  for  our  humble  two  millions; 
they  asked  for  six  millions.  What  did  they  do,  first  of  all? 
First  of  all  they  encouraged  Turkey  to  go  to  war.  They  did 
not  counsel  Turkey's  submission  to  superior  force ;  they 
neither  would  advise  her  to  submit,  nor  would  they  assist  her 
to  resist.  They  were  the  great  causes  of  her  plunging  into 
ihat  deplorable  and   ruinous    war,   from  the  consequences  of 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

Speech  states  this  year,  Turkey  has  not 
ivered,  and  there  is  not  the  smallest  appearance  of  hope 
that  she  will  ever  recover.     But  afterwards,  and  when  the  war 
iken  place,  they  came  and  asked  you  for  a  vote  of  six 
millions.      What  did  they  do  with  the  six  millions?     They 
ourished  it  in  the  face  of  the  world.     What  did  they  gain  for 
Turkey  ?    In  the  first  place,  they  sent  a  fleet  to  the  Dardanelles 
and  the  Bosphorus.     Are  you  aware  that  in  sending  that  fleet 
.  broke  the  law  of  Europe  ?     They  applied  for  a  firman  to 
Sultan.    The  Sultan  refused,  and  they  had  no  right  to  send 
that  fleet.     But,  however  that  may  be,  what  was  the  use  of 
;  that  fleet  ?     The  consequence  was  that  the  Russian 
army,  which  had  been  at  a  considerable  distance  from   Con- 
stantinople, marched  close  up  to  Constantinople.     Is  it   pos- 
sible to  conceive  an  idea  more  absurd  than  that  which  I  really 
believe  was  entertained  by  many  of  our  friends — I  do  not  say 
our  friends  in  Midlothian,  but  in  places  where  the  intelligence 
is  high  —that  the  presence  of  certain  British  ironclads  in  the 
Sea  of  Marmora  prevented  the  victorious  Russian  armies  from 
entering  Constantinople?      What  could  these   ironclads   do? 
.  could  have  battered  down  Constantinople,  no  doubt;  but 
what  consolation  would  that  have  been  to  Turkey,   or  how 
.'(1  it  have  prevented  Russian  armies  from  entering?     That 
part  of  the  pretext  set  is  too  thin  and  threadbare  to  require 
any  confutation.      But   they  may  say  that  that  vote  of   six 
mill i  an  indication  of  the  intention  of  England  to  act  in 

I  ;  and  when  it  was  first  proposed,  it  was  to  strengthen 
the  ngland  at  the  Congress.     But  did  it  strengthen 

■  hands  of  England  ;  and  if  so,  to  what  purpose  was  that 
The  Treaty  of  San  Stefano  had  been  signed 
;ia  and  Turkey;  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  was  sub- 
for  it.     What  was   the  grand  difference  between  the 
of  Berlin  and  tl  of  San  Stefano?     There  was 

ibia  which,  down  to  the  time  of  the  Treaty 
irlin  free   institutions,   and   by   the   Treaty   of 

ind  mainly  through  the  agency  oi  the  British  Govern- 


W.  E.  Gladstone  on  the  Bcaconsjield  Ministry.   233 

ment,  which  had  pledged  itself  beforehand  by  what  is  called 
the  Salisbury-Schouvaloff  Memorandum,  to  support  Russia 
in  her  demand  for  that  territory  if  Russia  adhered  to  that 
demand,  England,  with  the  vote  of  six  millions  given  to 
strengthen  her  influence,  made  herself  specially  responsible 
for  handing  back  that  territory,  which  enjoyed  free  institutions, 
to  be  governed  despotically  by  the  Russian  Empire. 

That  is  the  first  purpose  for  which,  as  I  have  shown  you, 
your  vote  of  six  millions  was  available.  What  was  the  second? 
It  was  to  draw  a  line  along  the  Balkan  Mountains,  by  means 
of  which  Northern  Bulgaria  was  separated  from  Southern 
Bulgaria,  and  Southern  Bulgaria  was  re-named  Eastern  Rou- 
melia.  The  Sultan  has  not  marched,  and  cannot  march,  a  man 
into  Eastern  Roumelia.  If  he  did,  the  consequences  would 
be  that  the  whole  of  that  population,  who  are  determined  to 
fight  foi  their  rights,  would  rise  against  him  and  his  troops, 
and  would  be  supported  by  other  forces  that  could  be  drawn 
to  it  under  the  resistless  influences  of  sympathy  with  freedom. 
You  may  remember  that  three  or  four  years  ago  utter  scorn 
was  poured  upon  what  was  called  the  "  bag-and-baggage 
policy."  Are  you  aware  that  that  policy  is  at  this  moment  the 
basis  upon  which  are  regulated  the  whole  of  the  civil  state  of 
things  in  Bulgaria  and  Eastern  Roumelia?  What  that  policy 
asked  was  that  every  Turkish  authority  should  be  marched  out 
of  Bulgaria,  and  every  Turkish  authority  has  gone  out  of  Bul- 
garia. There  is  not  a  Turk  at  this  moment  who,  as  a  Turk, 
holds  office  under  the  Sultan  either  in  Bulgaria  or  in  Southern 
Bulgaria,  which  is  called  Eastern  Roumelia—  no,  not  one. 
The  despised  "bag-and-baggage  policy"  is  at  this  moment  the 
law  of  Europe,  and  that  is  the  result  of  it ;  and  it  is  for  that, 
Gentlemen,  that  the  humble  individual  who  stands  before  you 
was  held  up  and  reviled  as  a  visionary  enthusiast  and  a  verbose 
— I  forget  what- — rhetorician,  although  I  believe  myself  there 
was  not  much  verbosity  in  that  particular  phrase.  It  appeared 
to  me  the  people  of  England  understood  it  pretty  well — nay, 
more,  the  Congress  of  Berlin  seemed  to  have  understood  it, 


- 1  i  Modem  Political  Orations. 

and  the  state  of  things  which  I  recommended  was  irresistible, 
i  now,  I  thank  God,  is  irreversibly  established  in  those  once 
provinces.      Gentlemen,    we    have    got    one    more 
thing  to  do  in  regard  to  these  provinces,  and  that  is  this— I 
i  it  at  the  same  time  when  I  produced  this  monstrous  con- 
ion  of  the  "bag-and-baggage  policy"— it  is  this,  to  take 
that  the  majority  of  the  inhabitants  of  these  pro- 
.  who  are  Christians,  do  not  oppress  either  the  Moham- 
medans,  or  the  Jewish,   or  any  other  minority.      That  is  a 
lutyj    I  don't  believe  it  to  be  a  difficult  duty;  it  is  a 
sacred  duty.     I   stated  to  you  just  now  that  there  was  not  a 
Turk  holding  office,  as  a  Turk,  in  these  provinces.     I  believe 
are  Turks  holding  office— and  I  rejoice  to  hear  it— hold- 
ice  through  the  free  suffrage  of  their  countrymen,  and 
!  that  they,  when  they  are  once  rid  of  all  the 

lent  and  poisonous  associations,  and  the  recollections  of 
the  old  ascendency,  will  become  good  and  peaceful  citizens 
like  other  people.     I  believe  the  people  of  Turkey  have  in 
them   many  fine  qualities,   whatever  the  Governors  may  be, 
ble  under  proper  education,  Gentlemen,  of  bringing  them 

■  i  capacity  and  competency  for  every  civil  duty. 

ntlemen,  it  still  remains  for  me  to  ask  you  how  this  great 

powerful  Government  has  performed  its  duty  of  maintain* 

the  integrity  and  independence  of  Turkey.      It  has  had 

•  and  extraordinary  advantages.     It  has  had  the  advantage 

plined    support   from   its   majority   in   the    House   of 

<  Though  I  am  not  making  any  complaint,  as  my 

id    in    the   Chair  knows,  it  was  not  exactly  the  same  as 

led    in    the    days    of   recent    Liberal    Governments.     It 

unflinching   and   incessant    support   from    the  large 

the  I  ,ords.      That  was  very  far  from  being  our  case 

There   is  no  reason  why  I   should  not  say  so. 

1  ii  is  an  historical  fact-  that  the  House  of  Lords, 

ntatives   are    backed    by   a   strong 

ial   feeling,   when    it   would    be    dangerous   to  oppose, 

i  the  House  of  Lords  pass  our  measures. 


W.  E.  Gladstone  on  the  Beaconsfield  Ministry.   235 

So  they  passed  the  Disestablishment  of  the  Irish  Church, 
and  so  they  passed  the  Irish  Land  Act;  and  I  have  no 
doubt  that,  if  it  pleases  the  Almighty,  they  will  pass  many 
more  good  measures.  But  the  moment  the  people  go  to 
sieep  —  and  they  cannot  be  always  awake  —  when  public 
opinion  flags  and  ceases  to  take  a  strong  and  decided  interest 
in  public  questions,  that  moment  the  majority  of  the  House 
of  Lords  grows.  They  mangle,  they  postpone,  they  reject 
the  good  measures  that  go  up  to  them. 

I  will  show  you  another  advantage  which  the  present  Ad- 
ministration possesses.  They  are  supported  by  several  foreign 
Governments.  Did  you  read  in  the  London  papers  within 
the  last  few  weeks  an  account  of  the  energetic  support  they 
derived  from  the  Emperor  of  Austria?  Did  you  see  that  the 
Emperor  of  Austria  sent  for  the  British  Ambassador,  Sir 
Henry  Elliot,  and  told  him  that  a  pestilent  person,  a  certain 
individual  named  Mr  Gladstone,  was  a  man  who  did  not 
approve  the  foreign  policy  of  Austria,  and  how  anxious  he  was 
— so  the  Kmperor  of  Austria  was  pleased  complacently  to  say 
— for  the  guidance  of  the  British  people  and  of  the  electors  of 
Midlothian— how  anxious  he  was  that  you  should,  all  of  you, 
give  your  votes  in  a  way  to  maintain  the  Ministry  of  Lord 
Beaconsfield.1  Well,  Gentlemen,  if  you  approve  the  foreign 
policy  of  Austria,  the  foreign  policy  that  Austria  has  usually 
pursued,  I  advise  you  to  do  that  very  thing ;  if  you  want  to 
have  an  Austrian  foreign  policy  dominant  in  the  Councils  of 
this  country,  give  your  votes  as  the  Emperor  of  Austria 
recommends.  What  has  that  foreign  policy  of  Austria  been? 
I  do  not  say  that  Austria  is  incurable.  I  hope  it  will  yet  be 
cured,  because  it  has  got  better  institutions  at  home,  and  I 
heartily  wish  it  well  if  it  makes  honest  attempts  to  confront  its 
difficulties.  Yet  I  must  look  to  what  that  policy  has  been. 
Austria  has  ever  been  the  unflinching  foe  of  freedom  in  every 
country   of  Europe.      Austria   trampled    under   foot,   Austria 

1  Subsequent  disclosures  proved  that  this  was  not  strictly  correct,  and  Mr 
Gladstone  apologetically  withdrew  the  statement. 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

,d  the  unity  of  Germany.     Russia,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  has 
>en   the   foe   of  freedom   too;    but   in    Russia   there  is  an 
>ption-Russia  has  been  the  friend  of  Slavonic  freedom; 
but  Austria  has  never  been  the  friend  even  of  Slavonic  freedom. 
Austria  did  all  she  could  to  prevent  the  creation  of  Belgium. 
Austria  never  lifted  a  finger  for  the   regeneration    and   con- 
stitution of  Greece.     There  is  not  an  instance— there  is  not  a 
;not  upon  the  whole   map   where   you   can   lay   your   finger 
say,  "There  Austria  did  good"     I  speak  of  its  general 
policy ;  I  speak  of  its  general  tendency.     I  do  not  abandon 
the  hope  of  improvement  in  the  future,  but  we  must  look  to 
the  past  and  to  the  present  for  the  guidance  of  our  judgments 
at   this   moment.      And   in   the   Congress   of  Berlin  Austria 
ted  the  extension  of  freedom,  and  did  not  promote  it; 
and  therefore,  1  say,  if  you  want  the  spirit  of  Austria  to  inspire 
the  Councils   of  this   country,    in    Heaven's   name   take   the 
Em;  counsel;   and   I   advise  you    to   lift  the   Austrian 

,vhen  you  go  about  your  purposes  of  canvass  or  of  public 
It  will  best  express  the  purpose  you  have  in  view, 
and  I,  (ot  one,  cannot  complain  of  your  consistency,  whatever, 
in  that  case,  I   might  think  of  the  tendency  of  your  views  in 
of  principle,  of  justice,  of  the  happiness  of  mankind,  or 
atness,  the  dignity,  and  the   honour   of  this  great 

Era] 

tl  men,  still  one  word  more,  because  I  have  no 
of  what  I  en  the  upshot  of  all  this.     There  are  a 

many  persons  in  this  country,  I  am  afraid,  as  well  as  in 
.  who  are  what  is  called  Worshippers  of  Success, 
i  of  the  famous  "Peace  with  Honour"  demon- 
ion  there  was  a  very  great  appearance  of  success.     I  was 
al   that  time  particularly  safe  when  I  walked  in  the 
of  London.1     I  have  walked  with  my  wife  from  my  own 
I  have  walked  owing  my  protection  to  the  police ;  but 

the  "  fingo"  Excitement,  Mr  and  Mrs  Gladstone  were 

i:i  Cavendish  Square,  and  saved  only  from 

ill  the  house  of  Dr,  afterwards  Sir,  Andrew  Clark. 


IV.  E.  Gladstone  on  the  Beaconsjield  Ministry.   237 

that  was  the  time,  Gentlemen,  when  all  those  curious  methods 
of  maintaining  British  honour  and  British  dignity  were  sup- 
posed to  have  been  wonderfully  successful.  And  now  I  want 
to  ask  you,  as  I  have  shown  you  the  way  we  went  about 
maintaining  the  independence  and  integrity  of  Belgium — what 
has  become  of  the  independence  and  integrity  of  Turkey? 
T  have  shown  that  they  neither  knew  in  the  first  instance 
the  ends  towards  which  they  should  first  have  directed  their 
efforts,  nor,  when  they  have  chosen  ends,  have  they  been  able 
rationally  to  adapt  their  means  to  the  attainment  of  those 
ends.  I  am  not  speaking  of  the  moral  character  of  the  means, 
but  how  they  are  adapted  to  the  end.  And  what  did  the  vote 
of  six  millions  achieve  for  Turkey  ?  I  will  tell  you  what 
it  achieved.  Tt  did  achieve  one  result,  and  I  want  you  well  to 
consider  whether  you  are  satisfied  with  it  or  not,  especially 
those  of  you  who  are  Conservatives.  It  undoubtedly  cut 
down  largely  the  division  of  Bulgaria,  established  by  the 
Treaty  of  San  Stefano.  Now,  I  am  not  going  to  maintain 
that  that  division  was  a  right  one,  for  that  depends  on  a 
knowledge  more  minute  than  I  possess ;  but  the  effect  of 
it  was  to  cut  it  down,  as  is  perfectly  well  known — that  is, 
put  back  under  the  direct  rule  of  the  Sultan  of  Turkey,  and  in 
the  exact  condition  in  which  all  European  Turkey,  except  the 
Principalities,  had  been  before  the  war,  the  population  in- 
habiting the  country  of  Macedonia,  and  about  a  million  of 
people,  the  vast  majority  of  them  Christians.  Two  substantive 
and  definite  results,  the  two  most  definite  results,  produced 
were  these — first  of  all,  that  Bessarabia,  that  had  been  a  country 
with  free  institutions,  was  handed  back  to  despotism  ;  and 
secondly,  a  million  and  a  half  of  people  inhabiting  Macedonia, 
to  whom  free  institutions  had  been  promised  by  the  Treaty  of 
San  Stefano,  are  now  again  placed  under  the  Turkish  Pashas, 
and  have  not  received  one  grain  of  benefit  of  importance  as 
compared  with  their  condition  before  the  war. 

But  how  as    regards  Turkey  ?     I  have  shown  results  bad 
enough  in  regard  to  freedom.    What  did  the  British  Plenipoten- 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

tiaries  say  at  Berlin?    They  said  that  some  people   seemed 
to  suppose  we  had  come  to  cut  and  carve  Turkey.     That  is 
quite  a  mistake,  said  the  Plenipotentiaries  ;  we  have  come  to 
consolidate   Turkey.      Some   of  the   scribes   of  the    Foreign 
ice  coined  a  new  word,  and  said  it  was  to  "rejuvenate" 
Turkey.     How  did  they  rejuvenate  this  unfortunate  Empire, 
this  miserable  Empire,  this  unhappy  Government  which  they 
have  lured  into  war  and  allowed  and  encouraged  to  pass  into 
war  because  they  allowed  their  Ambassadors  at  Constantinople, 
Sir  Henry  Elliot  and  Sir  Austen  Layard,  to  whisper  into  the 
ear  of  the  Turk  that  British  interests  would    compel  us  to 
interfere  and  help  her?     What  has  been  the  result  to  Turkey? 
Now,  I  will  say,  much  as  the  Christian  populations  have  the 
right  to  complain,  the  Sultan  of  Turkey  has  a  right  to  complain 
very   little   less.     How   has   the   Sultan    been    treated  ?     We 
condescended  to  obtain  from  him  the  island  of  Cyprus,  at  a 
time  when  Austria  was  pulling  at  him  on  one  side  and  free- 
dom on  the  other.     We  condescended  to  take  from  him  that 
miserable  paltry  share  of  the  spoil.     That  is  not  all.     What 
is  the  condition  of  Turkey  in  Europe?     It  is  neither  integrity 
nor  independence.       The  Sultan  is  liable  to  interference  at 
any  moment,    at  every  point  of  his  territory  from  every  one 
that  signed  the  Treaty  of  Berlin.     He  has  lost  ten  millions  of 
subjects  altogether,  ten  millions  more  are  in   some  kind   of 
dependence  or  other — in  a  condition  that  the  Sultan  does  not 
know  whether  they  will  be  his  subjects  to-morrow  or  the  next 
day.     Albania  is  possessed  by  a  League.     Macedonia,  as  you 
read  in  the  papers,   is  traversed  by  brigands.     Thessaly  and 
Epirus,  according  to  the  Treaty  of  Berlin,  should  be  given  to 
ce.     The   treasury  of  Turkey  is  perfectly  empty,  disturb- 
3  have  spread  through  Turkey  in  Asia,  and  the  condition 
of  that   Government  whose   integrity   and   independence   you 
told   that  "Peace  with   Honour"  had  secured,  is  more 
rable  than  at  any  previous  period  of  its  history  ;  and  wise 
and  merciful  indeed  would  be  the  man  that  would  devise  some 
method  of  improving  it. 


W.  E.  Gladstone  on  the  Beaconsjield  Ministry.   239 

To  those  gentlemen  who  talk  of  the  great  vigour  and 
determination  and  success  of  the  Tory  Government,  I  ask  you 
to  compare  the  case  of  Belgium  and  Turkey.  Try  them  by 
principles,  or  try  them  by  results,  I  care  not  which,  we  knew 
what  we  were  about  and  what  was  to  be  done  when  we  had 
integrity  and  independence  to  support.  When  they  had 
integrity  and  independence  to  protect,  they  talked,  indeed, 
loud  enough  about  supporting  Turkey,  and  you  would  suppose 
they  were  prepared  to  spend  their  whole  resources  upon  it; 
but  all  their  measures  have  ended  in  nothing  except  that  they 
have  reduced  Turkey  to  a  state  of  greater  weakness  than  at 
any  portion  of  her  history,  whereas,  on  the  other  hand,  in 
regard  to  the  twelve  or  thirteen  millions  of  Slavs  and  Rou- 
manian population,  they  have  made  the  name  of  England 
odious  throughout  the  whole  population,  and  done  everything 
in  their  power  to  throw  that  population  into  the  arms  of 
Russia,  to  be  the  tool  of  Russia  in  its  plans  and  schemes,  unless 
indeed,  as  I  hope  and  am  inclined  to  believe,  the  virtue  of 
free  institutions  they  have  obtained  will  make  them  too  wise 
to  become  the  tools  of  any  foreign  Power  whatever,  will  make 
them  intent  upon  maintaining  their  own  liberties,  as  becomes 
a  free  people  playing  a  noble  part  in  the  history  of  Europe. 

I  have  detained  you  too  long,  and  I  will  not,  though  I 
would,  pursue  this  subject  further.  I  have  shown  you  what  I 
think  the  miserable  failure  of  the  policy  of  the  Government. 
Remember  we  have  a  fixed  point  from  which  to  draw  our 
measurements.  Remember  what  in  1876  the  proposal  of 
those  who  approved  of  the  Bulgarian  agitation  and  who  were 
denounced  as  the  enemies  of  Turkey,  remember  what  that 
proposal  would  have  done.  It  would  have  given  Autonomy 
to  Bulgaria,  which  has  now  got  Autonomy ;  but  it  would  have 
saved  all  the  remainder  at  less  detriment  to  the  rest  of  the 
Turkish  Empire.  Turkey  would  have  had  a  fair  chance. 
Turkey  would  not  have  suffered  the  territorial  losses  which 
she  has  elsewhere  suffered,  and  which  she  has  suffered,  I  must 
say,  in  consequence  of  her  being  betrayed  into  the  false  and 


Modem  Political  Orations. 

ischievous,   the  tempting  and   seductive,    but   unreal    and 

ise  policy  of  the  present  Administration. 

There  are  other  matterswhich  must  be  reserved  for  other  times. 

We  are  told  about  the  Crimean  War.     Sir  Stafford  Northcote 

ells  us  the  Crimean  War,  made  by  the  Liberal  Government, 

>st  the  country  40  millions  of  debt,  and  an  income  tax  of 

;d.  per  pound.      Now  what  is  the  use  of  telling  us  that? 

!  will  discuss  the  Crimean  War  on  some  future  occasion,  but 

now.     If  the  Liberal  Government  were  so  clever,  that  they 

1  ontrived  to  burden  the  country  with  40  millions  of  debt  for 

this  Crimean  War,  why  does  he  not  go  back  to  the  war  before 

hat,   and  tell  us  what  the  Tory  Government   did  with   the 

Revolutionary  War,  when  they  left  a  debt  on  the  country  of 

some  900  millions,  of  which  650  millions  they  had  made  in  the 

Revolutionary  War,  and  not  only  so,  but  left  the  blessing  and 

cy  of  the  Corn  Laws,  and  of  a  high  protective  system,  an 

impoverished  country,  and  a  discontented  population — so  much 

so  that  for  years  that  followed  that  great  Revolutionary  War,  no 

man  could  say  whether  the  Constitution  of  this  country  was  or 

was  not  worth  five  years'  purchase.      They    might   even   go 

further  back  than  the  Revolutionary  War.      They  have  been 

talking  loudly  of  the  Colonies,   and   say   that,    forsooth,   the 

Liberal  party  do  nothing  for  the  Colonies.     What  did  the  Tory 

party  do  for  the  Colonies?     I  can  tell  you.     Go  to  the  war 

that  preceded  the  Revolutionary  War.     They  made  war  against 

the  American  Continent.      They  added  to  the  debt  of  the 

country  200  millions  in  order  to  destroy  freedom  in  America. 

They  alienated  it  and  drove  it  from  this  country.     They  were 

compelled  to  bring  this  country  to  make  an  ignominious  peace; 

and,  as  far  as  I  know,  that  attempt  to  put  down  freedom  in 

America,  with  its  results  to  this  country,  is  the  only  one  great; 

which  has  ever  distinguished  the  relations  between  a  Tory 

Government  and  the  Colonies. 

it,  Gentlemen,  these  must  be  matters  postponed  for  another 

I  th auk  you  very  cordially,  both  friends  and  oppon- 

ii  opponents  you  be,  for  the  extreme  kindness  with  which 


W.  E.  Gladstone  on  the  Beaconsfield Ministry.  241 

you  have  heard  me.  I  have  spoken,  and  I  must  speak  in  very 
strong  terms  of  the  acts  done  by  my  opponents.  I  will  never 
say  that  they  did  it  from  vindictiveness,  I  will  never  say  that 
they  did  it  from  passion,  I  will  never  say  that  they  did  it  from 
a  sordid  love  of  office ;  I  have  no  right  to  use  such  words  ;  I 
have  no  right  to  entertain  such  sentiments  ;  I  repudiate  and 
abjure  them.  I  give  them  credit  for  patriotic  motives — I  give 
them  credit  for  those  patriotic  motives,  which  are  incessantly 
and  gratuitously  denied  to  us.  I  believe  we  are  all  united  in 
a  fond  attachment  to  the  great  country  to  which  we  belong,  to 
the  great  Empire  which  has  committed  to  it  a  trust  and  function 
from  Providence,  as  special  and  remarkable  as  was  ever  en- 
trusted to  any  portion  of  the  family  of  man.  When  I  speak 
of  that  trust  and  that  function  I  feel  that  words  fail.  I  cannot 
tell  you  what  I  think  of  the  nobleness  of  the  inheritance  which 
has  descended  upon  us,  of  the  sacredness  of  the  duty  of 
maintaining  it.  I  will  not  condescend  to  make  it  a  part  of 
controversial  politics.  It  is  a  part  of  my  being,  of  my  flesh 
and  blood,  of  my  heart  and  soul.  For  those  ends  I  have 
laboured  through  my  youth  and  manhood,  and,  more  than 
that,  till  my  hairs  are  grey.  In  that  faith  and  practice  I  have 
lived,  and  in  that  faith  and  practice  I  shall  die. 


CHARLES  BRADLAUGH  AT  THE  BAR 
OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 

Second  Speech,  April  26th,  1881. 

[M r  BRADLAUGH's  first  attempt  to  take  his  seat  in  the  House  as  the  Member 
(or  Northampton,  May  21st,  1880,  was  frustrated  on  the  ground  that  he 
claimed  the  right  to  affirm  instead  of  subscribing  the  oath  in  the  usual  way. 
econd  appearance  in  the  House,  on  the  above  date,  after  having  been 
in  the  meantime  re-elected  by  his  constituents,  gave  rise  to  the  following 
impassioned  speech.] 

Mr  Speaker,  —  I  have  again  to  ask  the  indulgence  of  the 
House,  while  I  submit  to  it  a  few  words  in  favour  of  my  claim 
to  do  that  which  the  law  requires  me  to  do.  Perhaps  the 
House  will  pardon  me  if  I  supply  an  omission,  I  feel  uninten- 
tionally made,  on  the  part  of  the  hon.  member  for  Chatham 
(Mr  John  Gorst).  In  some  words  which  have  just  fallen  from 
him,  I  understood  him  to  say  that  he  would  use  a  formal 
statement  made  by  me  to  the  Committee  against  what  the 
Chancellor  of  the  Duchy  had  said  I  had  said.  I  am 
sure  the  hon.  and  learned  member  for  Chatham,  who  has 
evidently  read  the  proceedings  of  the  Committee  with  care, 
Id,  if  he  had  thought  it  fair,  have  stated  to  the  House  that 
the  statement  only  came  from  me  after  an  objection  made  by 
me  —  a  positive  objection  on  the  ground  that  it  related  to 
matters  outside  this  House,  and  that  the  House  in  the  course 
of  ii  nl  never  inquired  into  such  matters;  but  I  can 

lly  understand  what  the  member  for  Chatham  meant,  when 
said  that  he  contrasted  what  I  did  say  with  what  the  Chan- 


Charles  Bradlaugh  at  the  Bar  of  the  House.  243 

cellor  of  the  Duchy  said  I  said  ;  for  it  is  not  a  matter  of  memory, 
it  is  on  the  proceedings  of  this  House,  that,  being  examined 
formally  before  the  Committee,  I  stated:  "That  the  essential 
part  of  the  oath  is  in  th£  fullest  and  most  complete  degree 
binding  upon  my  honour  and  conscience,  and  that  the  repeat- 
ing of  the  words  of  asseveration  does  not  in  the  slightest  degree 
weaken  the  binding  of  the  allegiance  on  me."  I  now  say  I 
would  not  go  through  any  form— much  as  I  value  the  right  to 
sit  in  this  House,  much  as  I  desire  and  believe  that  this  House 
will  accord  me  that  right— that  I  did  not  mean  to  be  binding 
upon  me  without  mental  reservation,  without  equivocation.  I 
would  go  through  no  form  unless  it  were  fully  and  completely  and 

4oroughly  binding  upon  me,  as  to  what  it  expressed  or  promised. 
Mine  has  been  no  easy  position  for  the  last  twelve  months. 
I  have  been  elected  by  the  free  votes  of  a  free  constituency. 
M>  return  is  untainted.  There  is  no  charge  of  bribery,  no 
charge  of  corruption,  nor  of  inducing  men  to  come  drunken  to 
the  polling-booth.  I  come  here  with  a  pure  untainted  return 
— not  won  by  accident.  For  thirteen  long  years  have  I  fought 
for  this  right — through  five  contested  elections,  including  this. 
It  is  now  proposed  to  prevent  me  from  fulfilling  the  duty  my 
constituents  have  placed  upon  me.  You  have  force  :  on  my 
side  is  the  law.  The  hon.  and  learned  member  for  Plymouth 
(Mr,  afterwards  Sir,  Edward  Clarke)  spoke  the  truth  when  he 
said  he  did  not  ask  the  House  to  treat  the  matter  as  a  question 
of  law  ;  but  the  constituencies  ask  me  to  treat  it  as  a  question 
of  law.  I,  for  them,  ask  you  to  treat  it  as  a  question  of  law. 
I  could  understand  the  feeling  that  seems  to  have  been  mani- 
fested were  I  some  great  and  powerful  personage.  I  could 
understand  it  had  I  a  large  influence  behind  me.  I  am  only 
one  of  the  people,  and  you  propose  to  teach  them  that,  on  a  mere 
technical  question,  you  will  put  a  barrier  in  the  way  of  my  doing 
my  duty  which  you  have  never  put  in  the  way  of  anybody  else. 
The  question  is,  Has  my  return  on  the  9th  of  April  1881  any. 
thing  whatever  to  impeach  it  ?  There  is  no  legal  disqualifica- 
tion involved.     If  there  were,  it  could  be  raised  by  petition. 


Modem  Political  Orations. 

The  hon.  member  for  Plymouth  says  the  dignity  of  this  House 
s  in  question.     Do  you  mean  that  I  can  injure  the  dignity  of 

House?    This   House   which   has   stood   unrivalled   for 

;enturies  ?     This  House,  supreme  among  the  assemblies  of  the 

This  House,  which  represents  the  traditions  of  liberty? 

1  should  not  have  so  libelled  you.     How  is  the  dignity  of  this 

se  to  be  hurt  ?  If  what  happened  before  the  9th  of  April 
is  less  than  a  legal  disqualification,  it  is  a  matter  for  the  judg- 
ment of  the  constituency  and  not  for  you.  The  constituency 
has  judged  me  j  it  has  elected  me  ;  I  stand  here  with  no  legal 
disqualification  upon  me.  The  right  of  the  constituency  to 
return  me  is  an  unimpeachable  right.  I  know  some  gentle- 
men make  light  of  constituencies;  yet  without  the  constitu- 
encies you  are  nothing.  It  is  from  them  you  derive  your 
whole  and  sole  authority.  The  hon.  and  learned  member  for 
Plymouth  treats  lightly  the  legal  question.  It  is  dangerous  to 
make  light  of  the  law— dangerous,  because  if  you  are  only 
going  to  rely  on  your  strength  of  force  to  override  the  law,  you 
give  a  bad  lesson  to  men  whose  morality  you  impeach  as  to 
what  should  be  their  duty  if  emergence  ever  came.  Always 
outside  the  House  I  have  advocated  strenuous  obedience  to 
the  law,  and  it  is  under  that  law  that  I  claim  my  right.  It  is 
by  the  right  hon.  baronet  (Sir  Stafford  Northcote),  who 
interposes   between   me  and  my  duty,  that   this    House  has 

od  some  Resolution.  First,  I  submit  that  that  Resolution 
docs  not  affect  the  return  of  the  9th  of  April.  The  conditions 
arc  entirely  different;  there  is  nothing  since  the  date  of  that 
return.     I  submit  next,  that,  if  it  did  affect  it,  the  Resolution 

illegal  from  the  beginning.     In  the  words  of  George  Gren- 

ville,  spoken  in  this  House  in  1769,  I  say,  if  your  Resolution 

in    the    teeth    of  the   law — if  against    the  Statute — your 

olution  is  null  and  void.     No  word  have  I  uttered  outside 
ills  which  has  been  lacking  in  respect  to  the  House.     I 
House  will  do  me  justice,  and  I  ask  it  to  look  at 
what  it  i    I  <  l.iim. 

1  ■  I      i  to  do  that  which  the  law  says  I  must.     Frankly,  I 


Charles  Bradlatigh  at  the  Bar  of  the  House.  245 

would  rather  have  affirmed.  When  I  came  to  the  table  of  the 
House  I  deemed  I  had  a  legal  right  to  do  it.  The  courts 
have  decided  against  me,  and  I  am  bound  by  their  decision. 
I  have  the  legal  right  to  do  what  I  propose  to  do.  No  Resolu- 
tion of  yours  can  take  away  that  legal  right.  You  may  act 
illegally  and  hinder  me ;  and  unfortunately,  I  have  no  appeal 
against  you.  "Unfortunately,"  perhaps,  I  should  not  say. 
Perhaps  it  is  better  that  the  Chamber  that  makes  the  law 
should  never  be  in  conflict  with  the  courts  which  administer 
the  laws  that  the  Chamber  makes.  I  think  the  word  "  unfor- 
tunately "  was  not  the  word  I  ought  to  have  used  in  tnis  argu- 
ment. But  the  force  that  you  invoke  against  the  law  to-day 
may  to-morrow  be  used  against  you,  and  the  use  will  be 
justified  by  your  example.  It  is  a  fact  that  I  have  no  remedy 
if  you  rely  on  your  force.  I  can  only  be  driven  into  a  contest, 
wearying  even  to  a  strong  man  well  supported,  ruinous  and 
killing  to  one  man  standing  by  himself — a  contest  in  which,  if 
I  succeed,  it  will  be  injurious  to  you  as  well  as  to  me.  In- 
jurious to  me,  because  I  can  only  win  by  lessening  your  repute, 
which  I  desire  to  maintain.  The  only  court  I  have  the  power 
of  appealing  to  is  the  court  of  public  opinion,  which  I  have  no 
doubt  in  the  end  will  do  me  justice.  The  hon.  member  for 
Plymouth  said  I  had  the  manliness  on  a  former  occasion  to 
make  an  avowal  of  opinions  to  this  House.  I  did  nothing  of 
the  kind.  I  have  never,  directly  or  indirectly,  said  one  word 
about  my  opinions,  and  this  House  has  no  right  to  inquire 
what  opinions  I  may  hold  outside  its  walls.  The  only  right  is 
that  which  the  Statute  gives  you  ;  my  opinions  there  is  no  right 
to  inquire  into.  I  shelter  myself  under  the  laws  of  my  country. 
This  is  a  political  assembly,  met  to  decide  on  the  policy  of  the 
nation,  and  not  on  the  religious  opinions  of  the  citizens. 
While  I  had  the  honour  of  occupying  a  seat  in  the  House, 
when  questions  were  raised  which  touched  upon  religious 
matters  I  abstained  from  uttering  one  word.  I  did  not  desire 
to  say  one  word  which  might  hurt  the  feeling  of  even  the 
most  tender. 


Modem  Political  Orations. 

But  it  is  said,  Why  not  have  taken  the  oath  quietly  ?  I  did 
not  take  it  then,  because  I  thought  I  had  the  right  to  do  some- 
thin-  else,  and  I  have  paid  the  penalty.  I  have  been  plunged 
in  litigation  fostered  by  men  who  had  not  the  courage  to  put 
themselves  forward.  I,  a  penniless  man,  should  have  been 
ruined  if  it  had  not  been  that  the  men  in  workshop,  pit,  and 
factory  had  enabled  me  to  fight  this  battle.  [An  interruption^ 
I  am  sorry  that  hon.  members  cannot  have  patience  with  one 
]  leading  as  I  plead  here.  It  is  no  light  task,  even  if  you  put 
it  on  the  lowest  personal  grounds,  to  risk  the  ambition  of  a  life 
on  such  an  issue.  It  is  a  right  ambition  to  desire  to  take  part 
in  the  councils  of  the  nation,  if  you  bring  no  store  of  wisdom 
with  you,  and  can  only  learn  from  the  great  intellects  that  we 
have.  What  will  you  inquire  into?  The  right  hon.  baronet 
would  inquire  into  my  opinions.  Will  you  inquire  into  my 
conduct,  or  is  it  only  my  opinions  you  will  try  here?  The  hon. 
member  for  Plymouth  frankly  puts  it,  opinions.  If  opinions, 
why  not  conduct?  Why  not  examine  into  members' conduct 
when  they  come  to  the  table,  and  see  if  there  be  no  members 
in  whose  way  you  can  put  a  barrier?  Are  members,  whose 
conduct  may  be  obnoxious,  to  vote  my  exclusion  because  to 
them  my  opinions  are  obnoxious?  As  to  any  obnoxious  views 
supposed  to  be  held  by  me,  there  is  no  duty  imposed  upon  me 
to  say  a  word.  The  right  hon.  baronet  has  said  there  has 
i  no  word  of  recantation.  You  have  no  right  to  ask  me 
for  any  recantation.  Since  the  9th  of  April  you  have  no  right 
to  ask  me  for  anything.  If  you  have  a  legal  disqualification, 
petition,  lay  it  before  the  judges.  When  you  ask  me  to  make 
a  statement,  you  are  guilty  of  impertinence  to  me,  of  treason 
to  the  traditions  of  this  House,  and  of  impeachment  of  the 
liberties  of  the  people.  My  difficulty  is  that  those  who  have 
made  the  most  bitter  attacks  upon  me  only  made  them  when  I 
n.t  here  to  deal  with  them. 

On<   hon.  and  gallant  member  recently  told  his  constituents 

s  would  be  made  a  Tarty  question,  but  that  the  Con- 

members  had  not  the  courage  to  speak  out  against 


Charles  Bradlaugh  at  the  Bar  of  the  House.   247 

me.     I  should  have  thought,  from  reading  Hansard,  not  that 
they  wanted  courage,  but  that  they  had  cultivated  a  reticence 
that  was  more  just.     I  wish  to  say  a  word  or   two   on  the 
attempt  which  has  been  made  to  put  on  the  Government  of 
the  day,  complicity  in  my  views.     The  Liberal  Party  has  never 
aided  me  in  any  way  to  this  House.     Never.      I  have  fought 
by  myself.     I  have  fought  by  my  own  hand.     I  have  been 
hindered  in  every  way  that  it  was  possible  to  hinder  me ;  and 
it  is  only  by  the  help  of  the  people,  by  the  pence  of  toilers  in 
mine  and  factory,    that    I   am   here   to-day,   after   these    five 
struggles  right  through  thirteen  years.     I  have  won   my  way 
with  them,  for  I  have  won  their  hearts,  and  now  I  come  to 
you.     Will  you  send  me  back  from  here  ?     Then  how  ?     You 
have  the  right,  but  it   is  the  right  of  force,  and  not  of  law. 
When  I  am  once  seated  on  these  benches,  then  I  am  under 
your  jurisdiction.     At  present  I  am  under  the  protection  of 
the  writ  from  those  who  sent  me  here.     I  do  not  want  to 
quote  what  has  happened  before;  but  if  there  be  one  lesson 
which  the  House  has  recorded  more  solemnly  than  another,  it 
is  that  there  should  be  no  interference  with  the  judgment  of  a 
constituency  in  sending  a  man  to  this  House  against  whom 
there  is  no  Statutory  disqualification.     Let  me  appeal  to  the 
generosity  of  the  House  as  well   as  to  its  strength.     It  has 
traditions  of  liberty  on   both  sides.     I  do  not  complain  that 
members  on  that  (the  Conservative)  try  to  keep  me  out.     They 
act  according  to  their  lights,  and  think  my  poor  services  may 
be  injurious  to  them.     [Cries  <?/"No!"]     Then  why  not  let 
me  in  ?     It  must  be  either  a  political  or  a  religious  question. 

I  must  apologise  to  the  House  for  trespassing  upon  its  patience. 
I  apologise  because  I  know  how  generous  in  its  listening  it  has 
been  from  the  time  of  my  first  speech  in  it  till  now.  But  I  ask 
you  now,  do  not  plunge  with  me  into  a  struggle  I  would  shun. 
The  law  gives  me  no  remedy  if  the  House  decides  against  me. 
Do  not  mock  at  the  constituencies.  If  you  place  yourselves 
above  the  law,  you  leave  me  no  course  save  lawless  agitation 
instead  of  reasonable  pleading.    It  is  easy  to  begin  such  a  strife, 


24S  Modern  Political  Orations. 

but  none  knows  how  it  would  end.  I  have  no  court,  no 
tribunal  to  appeal  to :  you  have  the  strength  of  your  votes  at 
the  moment.  You  think  I  am  an  obnoxious  man,  and  that  I 
have  no  one  on  my  side.  If  that  be  so,  then  the  more  reason 
that  this  House,  grand  in  the  strength  of  its  centuries  of  liberty, 
should  have  now  that  generosity  in  dealing  with  one  who 
to-morrow  may  be  forced  into  a  struggle  for  public  opinion 
against  it. 


JUSTIN    M'CARTHY 
IN  DEFENCE   OF  HIS   COLLEAGUES. 

House  of  Commons,  February  23RD,  1883. 

[In  the  adjourned  Debate  on  the  Amendment  proposed  on  the  Main  Ques- 
tion affecting  Irish  Affairs  in  the  Queen's  Speech,  Mr  W.  E.  Forster 
charged  Mr  Justin  M'Carthy  and  his  Colleagues  with  complicity  in  the 
recent  outrages  and  crimes  in  Ireland.] 

The  fate  of  the  Amendment  now  before  the  House  gives  me 
very  little  concern.  Neither  its  fate,  nor  its  purport,  nor  its 
wording  is  of  much  account  to  me,  or  to  those  with  whom  I 
have  the  honour  to  act.  One  thing  is  clear,  that  the  Amend- 
ment is  directed  not  against  the  Irish  members,  but  against  Her 
Majesty's  Ministers.  I  care  not  whether  it  is  rejected  or  passed, 
and  I  do  not  propose  to  make  my  business  either  the  arraign- 
ment or  the  defence  of  the  Government  as  regards  its  general 
policy.  I  shall  confine  myself  to  two  speeches  delivered  in  the 
course  of  this  debate — that  of  the  right  hon.  gentleman  the 
member  for  Bradford  (Mr  Forster),  and  that  of  the  right  hon. 
gentleman  the  Chief  Secretary  for  Ireland.  Now  the  speech  of 
the  right  hon.  gentleman  the  member  for  Bradford  was  un- 
doubtedly what  writers  in  the  newspapers  sometimes  call 
''a  great  effort."  It  was  a  tremendous  effort.  I  always  thought 
the  right  hon.  gentleman  had  a  good  deal  of  theatrical  talent, 
which  he  had  not  up  to  the  present  fully  developed.  Those 
who  heard  his  remarkable  speech  will  agree  with  me  that  it  was 
mimetic  as  well  as  historic.  It  gave  us  that  entertainment 
which  is  often  described  in  the  play-bills  of  theatres  and  music- 


2-0  Modem  Political  Orations. 

halls  as  "  imitations  of  popular  performers."     I  wish  I  saw  him 
in  his  place  in  the  House  at  present.     I  am  hardly  mistaken  in 
thinking  that  he  favoured  the  House  with  what  he  believed  to 
be  imitations  of  the  voices  and  manners  of  some  hon.  members 
of  the  Irish  Party.     I  am  content  that  he  shall  have  all  the 
favour  which  his  familiar  attacks  upon  some  members  of  that 
Party,  and  his  erudition  in  American  newspapers,  can  win  him 
for  a  time  from  this  House  and  the  public.     I  know,  too,  that 
his  motive  was  not  merely,  although  it  was  mainly,  to  discredit 
the  Irish  members.      He  had  his  mind  fixed  also  upon  dis- 
crediting and  damaging  the   Government   from  which  he  has 
been  discarded;  and  I  am  convinced  that  there  are  members 
of  that  Government— aye,  members  who  are  at  this  moment 
sitting  on  the  Treasury  Bench — whom  he  had  in  his  mind  with 
a  wish  to  discredit  my  hon.  friend  the  member  for  the  City  of 
Cork  (Mr  Parnell).     Whaiever  his  speech  was  made  up  from — 
from  American  newspapers,   from  reports  of  meetings  in  the 
country,  from  hints,  and  more  than  hints,  in  the  passionate 
press  of  London — there  was  one  quality  of  that  speech  which 
was  all  the  right  hon.  gentleman's  own,  and  that  was  its  en- 
venomed malignity.     I  never  heard  in  this    House  a  speech 
more  entirely  inspired  with  the  purpose  of  deliberate  defama- 
tion.    I  believe  it  was  the  right  hon.  gentleman's  intention  to 
do  all  the  damage  he  could  to  the  characters  of  some  members 
of  the  House  by  a  process  of  systematic  calumny.     He  accused 
some  of  my  hon.  friends,  and  with  them  of  course  myself,  of 
conniving  at  outrage  and  assassination.     He  talked  of  offering 
us  an  alternative;  but  he  gave  none.     He  made  it  clear  that  his 
<  harge  was  nothing  short  of  deliberate  connivance  with  outrage 
and  assassination.     Heie  is  the  sort  of  alternative  the  right  hon. 
gentleman  offered  us — 

"  I  give  the  hon.  member  an   alternative,  that   ei'her  he  connived  at 

i    warned   by   facts    and    statements,    he  determined  to 

m  ignorance;  that  he  took  no  trouble  to  test  the  truth  of  whether 

iiad  been  committed  or  not,  but  that  he  was  willing  to  eain  the 

1 1 age  of  them." 


Justin  McCarthy  in  Defence  of  his  Party.    251 

I  point  out  that  this  is  no  alternative;  that  men  who  arc 
informed  that  outrage  and  assassination  are  going  on,  and  who 
determine  to  remain  in  ignorance,  and  are  willing  to  gain  the 
benefit  of  outrage  and  assassination,  are  distinctly  conniving  at 
those  crimes.     Therefore,  I  tell  the  right  hon.  gentleman  that 
when  he  pretended  to  give  us  an  alternative  he  did  nothing  of 
the  kind ;  and  that  as  he  had  made  up  his  mind  to  charge  us 
by  implication  with  conniving  at   murder,  he  ought  to  have 
stood   boldly  up  and  said  so.     He  ought  to  have  said  so  in 
those  plain  words  he  sometimes  is  able  to  use,  and  ought  not 
to  have  shielded  himself  behind  the  pretence  of  an  alternative. 
I  should  have  thought  that  the  right  hon.  gentleman  would  be 
the  member  of  this    House   least   inclined,  owing  to  certain 
memories  he  must  have,  to  fling  accusations  of  sympathy  with 
murder  recklessly  at  other  men.     When  charging  us  with  these 
crimes,  he  must  have  recalled  a  time  when  a  newspaper,  then 
far  more  influential  than  it  now  is — The  Tunes — charged  him 
with  sympathy  with  secret  assassination.     I  do  not  charge  the 
right  hon.  gentleman  with  having  sympathy  with  crime ;  but 
for  the  reason  I  have  stated  he  ought  to  have  fell  a  sentiment 
which    would    have    prevented    him   from    recklessly   hurling 
similar  charges  in  the  faces  of  men  as  honourable  as  himself, 
and  who  feel  as  little  thirst  for  blood  as  he  does.     On  the  14th 
of  March  1864,  one  who  was  then  a  member  of  this  House, 
and  is  now  high  in  Her  Majesty's  Colonial  Service— Sir  John 
Pope  Hennessy — brought  forward  certain    statements   in  this 
House  with  regard  to  a  right  hon.  friend  of  mine,  for  whom 
I  have  the  highest  respect,  the  member  for  Halifax  (Mr  Stans- 
feld),  and  who  was  accused  by  certain  newspapers  of  sympathy 
with  assassination  because  he  had  harboured  Mazzini  and  some 
of  his  friends.    This  became  the  subject  of  debate  in  this  House, 
and  led  to  the  right  hon.  gentleman  the  member  for  Halifax 
resigning   his   position    in   the  Government.     The  right  hon. 
gentleman  the  member  for  Bradford  stood  up  for  his  friend.     I 
do  not  blame  him  lor  that — he  believed  him  to  be  innocent. 
But   what  were   the   evidences  given,    and   the   assassination 


Modem  Political  Orations. 


theory  held,  by  the  man  for  whom  the  right  hon.  gentlen  an 
he  member  for  Bradford  stood  up  in  this  House  ?     Extracts 
were  then  read   from  Mazzini's  letter,    "The  Theory  of  the 
_crer."    Such  passages  as  these  were  read — 

"Blessed  be  the  knife  of  Palafox:   blessed  be   in  your  hands  every 

,on  that  can  destroy  the  enemy  and  set  you  free.     The  weapon  that 

v  Mincovich  in  the  Arsenal  initiated  the  insurrection  in  Venice.     It  was 

jot  of  irregular  warfare  like  that  which,  three   months   before  the 

:,  destroyed  the  Minister  Rossi  in  Rome.     .     .    .     Sacred  be  the 

stiletto  that  began  the  Silician  Vespers." 

The  right  hon.  gentleman  the  member  for  Bradford  rose  and 

said — 

"The  hon.    and   learned   gentleman  has    brought   forward   a  charge 
st  an  absent  man—  Signor  Mazzini— who,  whatever  his  faults,  was  a 
q  of  high  character." 

Whatever  his  faults  ?    What  though  he  blessed  the  knife  of 
one  man  and  the  dagger  of  another,  and  the  system  of  "irregu- 
lar warfare  "  which  removed  Count  Rossi,  the  Minister  of  the 
Pope  Pius  IX.,  who  was  murdered  on  the  steps  of  the 
hoi.  he  was  "a  man  of  high  character"!     The  right  hon. 
gentleman's  Leader  of  the  present  day  did  not  agree  with  his 
mate  of  Signor  Mazzini.     The  present  Prime  Minister  had 
written  in  a  preface  to  a  translation  of  Signor  Farini's  "Roman 
-"'1  he  Satellites  of  Mazzini  make  common  cause  with 
;ns."     After  those  extracts  had  been  read  and  four  days 
I,  .hiring  which  the  right  hon.  member  for  Bradford 
had  time  for  reflection,  the  subject  was  again  raised,  and  the 
right  hon.  gentleman  said — 

"  I  should  not  be  ashamed  of  being  the  friend  of  Mazzini."    [Irish  cheers, 
of    The    Dagger  /]       "  I  am   not    ashamed    of   being    his 

e." 

% 

Well,  T  think  that  that  incident  is  not  without  its  interest  and 

ral.     The  Irish  members  who  brought  forward  that  question 

did  not  charge  the  right  hon.  gentleman,  or  think 

him,  with  sympathy  with  assassination.    The  charge 

t  he  and  his  companions  showed  a  levity  which  disie- 


Justin  McCarthy  in  Defence  of  his  Party.    253 

garded  what  a  man  might  do,  so  long  as  that  man  was  a  foreign 
patriot.  The  Times  of  March  15,  1864,  had  a  leading  article 
on  the  subject,  which  is  not  without  its  application  to  the 
present  circumstances.  The  right  hon.  gentleman  was  not 
then  in  the  flush  and  heyday  of  youth.  He  was  able  to  judge 
whether  Mazzini  and  his  associates  and  satellites  were  what 
they  were  represented  to  be.     The  Times  said — 

"Who,  then,  is  this  M.  Mazzini,  to  whose  innocence  this  gentleman  (Mr 
Stansfeld)  and  Mr  W.  E.  Forster  pledge  themselves?  Let  anyone  read 
the  passages  quoted  by  Mr  Hennessy  last  night,  and  say  whether  the 
friends  of  M.  Mazzini  have  any  right  to  indulge  in  high-flown  indignation 
when  it  is  alleged  that  he  might  possibly  be  engaged  in  a  conspiracy  against 
a  Potentate's  life." 

I  ask  whether  the  right  hon.  member  for  Bradford  was  justi- 
fied in  seizing  at  the  chance  of  high-flown  indignation  because 
the  newspaper  that  accused  him  then  of  sympathy  with 
assassination  accuses  some  of  us  now  of  the  same  thing.  I 
wonder  that  the  memory  of  that  episode  in  his  career  has  not 
made  him  more  generous  —  yes,  I  will  say,  more  honest — 
towards  men  whom,  in  his  heart,  he  no  more  believes  to  be 
guilty  of  that  charge  than  honourable  men  then  believed  him 
to  be.  I  pass  from  that  not  uninstructive  incident  to  the  right 
hon.  gentleman's  attack  on  Irish  members,  and  the  grounds  on 
which  that  attack  was  made.  He  had  something  to  say  about 
myself  in  connection  with  United  Ireland,  a  paper  published  in 
Dublin.  He  said  much  the  same  thing  about  a  year  ago.  He 
then  went  over  the  story  of  some  articles  that  he  said  appeared 
in  that  paper.  I  believe  they  were  not  articles,  but  headings  of 
paragraphs  ;  and  he  appealed  to  me,  though  I  was  not  in  my 
place  at  the  time,  to  know  whether  I  approved  of  all  these 
various  paragraphs  and  headings.  Now,  the  right  hon.  gentle- 
man must  have  known — at  all  events  he  might  have  known — 
that  I  could  not  have  seen  that  newspaper  then.  He  knew 
that  I  had  been  out  of  England  the  whole  of  that  recess,  from 
the  end  of  one  Session  to  the  beginning  of  another.  [An  Irish 
Member. — "  He  did."]  He  did,  and  he  said  so  himself  in  this 
House,  for  he  indulged  in  some  more  or  less  graceful  satire  at 


254  Modern  Political  Orations. 

my  expense,  and  complained  that,  instead  of  helping  to  keep 
id,  I  had  been  enjoying  myself  among  the  monu- 
ments of  ancient  Greece.     But  since  I  was  so  culpable  as  to  be 
ying  myself  among  the  monuments  of  ancient  Greece,  and 
in  countries  much  further  off,  he  might  have  known  that  it  was 
not  likely  that  a  Dublin  paper  followed  me  in  all  my  wander- 
He  knew  that  at  the  time  he  was  speaking— at  the  time 
e  was  so  playfully  chiding  me  for  the  amusement  of  the  House 
-he  must  have  known   that  that  paper  was  prevented  from 
coming  into  this  country ;  and  though  I  made  strenuous  efforts 
shortly  after  to  get  copies  of  it,  and  see  if  it  contained  the  ter- 
ible  things  it  was  said  to  contain,  I  was  unable  to  obtain  a  copy, 
r,  I  allow  that  to  pass.      It  would  not  much  matter 
if  the  right  hon.  gentleman  could  have  sustained  his  charge. 
If  he  had  not  returned  to  it,  I  should  not  have  cared  to  raise  it. 
l'.ut  I  am  quite  willing  to  tell  him,  if  it  affords  him  the  slightest 
interest,  the  history  of  my  connection  with  that  paper.     It  was 
started   to  get  rid  of  a  notorious  print,  which  appears  lately 
to  have  lived  by  the  levying  of  blackmail  in  Dublin.     It  was 
founded  by  a  Committee  of  gentlemen  in  whom  I  have  the 
greatest  trust ;  and  the  editorship  was  given  to  a  man  whom  I 
id   and   respect,  and  whom    I   know  to   be  incapable  of 
ducting  a  journal  on  the  principles  the  right  hon.  gentleman 
ribed.     Under  these  conditions  I  felt  content,  having  no 
trol  over  the  paper,  to  go  abroad  among  the  monuments  of 
ancient  Greece,  and  to  leave  the  paper  in  the  hands  of  the  able 
r  who  has  already  shown  his  ability  in  this  House.     I  did 
not  inquire  in  my  absence  how  he  conducted  it.      I  know  he 
ducted  it  honourably  and  well;  and  we  have  learned  that 
only  things  the  right  hon.  gentleman  objects  to  are  the 
hs  and  headings  which  got  into  the  paper  while  he  had 
the  responsible  editor  under  lock  and  key  in  one  of  his  prisons. 
I  have  said  enough  on  that  point.    I  do  not  believe  that  any 
ition    would   convict   that   editor    of   publishing    any 
which  men  of  honour  would  be  ashamed  to  sanction, 
lion,  gentleman  went  over  many  points  with  the 


Justin  McCarthy  in  Defence  of  his  Party.    255 

object  of  associating  me  and  others  with  plots  and  assassinations. 

For  example,  he  spoke  of  a  telegram  sent  by  Mr  Brennan,  who 

was  the  correspondent  of  The  Irish    World,   to   that   paper. 

The  telegram  is  given  variously  in  the  different  journals,  but  I 

would  ask  the  right  hon.  gentleman,  Is  this  which  I  am  about 

to  rend  the  right  version  ? — 

"  All  sorts  of  theories  are  afloat  concerning  this  explosion  " — that  is  the 
Salford  dynamite  explosion — "but  the  truly  loyal  one  is  that  Fenianism 
did  it." 

What  is  the  plain  and  evident  meaning  of  that  ?    Is  it  not  that 

the  fashionable  and  loyal  theory,  as  a  matter  of  course,  is  that 

the  Fenians  did  it?     I  ask  the  right  hon.  gentleman,   Is  not 

that  the  manifest  meaning  ?     [Mr  W.  E.  Forster. — "  I  would 

ask  the  hon.  member  to  read  the  remainder  of  the  telegram."] 

I  quote  the  whole  of  the  printed  version  I  have.      The  right 

hon.  gentleman  charged  me  with  deliberate  avoidance  of  reading 

articles  in  order  that  I  might  be  able  to  say  I  do  not  know  of 

the  incitement  to  assassination  they  contained.    Then  he  said — 

"  I  expect,  or  suspect" — probably  suspect,  it  is  more  in  his  line — "  I 
suspect  the  hon.  member  (meaning  myself)  has  been  careful  not  to  read  the 
articles  to  which  I  refer." 

The  charge  is,  perhaps,  hardly  Parliamentary.  There  was  a 
rude  interruption  last  night,  which  we  all  regret,  to  an  imputa- 
tion which  ought  not  to  have  been  made;  but  the  right  hon. 
gentleman  is  allowed  to  say — 

"  I  suspect  the  hon.  member  has  been  careful  not  to  read  the  articles  to 
which  I  refer." 

The  whole  theory  and  purpose  of  his  declamation  and 
defamation  was  to  make  members  of  this  House  responsible 
for  every  violent  act  done,  and  every  violent  word  said,  by  any 
supposed  follower  of  his  in  this  country  or  America.  I  should 
like  to  know  how  that  theory  would  apply  to  the  right  hon. 
gentleman. 

The  right  hon.  gentleman  has  not  forgotten  the  riots  which 
occurred  in  the  Reform  years,  nor  the  men  who  got  up  these 
riots.  He  has  not  forgotten  the  riot  which  led  to  the  break- 
ing down  of  the  Hyde  Park  railings,  and  the   maiming  and 


256  Modem  Political  Orations. 

wounding  of  many   of  the  mob  and  some   policemen.     The 
it  hon.  gentleman  and  his  friends  came  back  to  power  on 
I   smash   of  the   Hyde    Park   railings.        The   right   hon. 
itleman  was  well  acquainted  with  the  leader  of  the  Demo- 
:  Movement- the  late  Mr  Beales.    [Mr  W.  E.  Forster.— 
"  I  did  not  know  him  personally."]  Neither  do  I  know  personally 
those  who  have  uttered  these  violent  words  and  done  these 
nt  acts  in   Ireland,  for  which  I  am  sought  to  be  made 
ible.      Mr  Beales  is  dead.     Mr  Beales  was  a  man  of 
ur  and  courage.     I  knew  him  and  I  respected  him.     But 
ertainly  got  around  him,  and  could  not  help  getting  around 
men  of  very  odd  character  and  very  odd  pretensions, 
s  the  right  hon.  gentleman  remember  a  certain  Mr  Joseph 
;       eSter,  a  famous  glass-blower?    [MrW.  E.  Forster. — "I  do 
not  remember  him."]      He  does  not  remember  him?     As  a 
>us  actress  said  on  one  occasion,    "  What  a  candour  ;  but 
what  a  memory  !  "     At  the  time  Mr  Leicester's  name  used  to 
ar  in  every  London  newspaper  every  morning.     This  dis- 
tinguished supporter  of  the  right  hon.  gentlemen's  party  went 
to  a  great  meeting  one  day — a  great  Trades'  Demonstration, 
held,  I  think,  in  Trafalgar  Square — and  this  was  part  of  the 
ch  of  Joseph  Leicester.     There  was  then,    as   there  has 
n  more  lately,  a  kind  of  rush  and  raid  on  the  House  of 
Commons  to  force  them  to  pass  a  certain  Bill,  and  this  was 
what  th;  gogue  here  said — 

'The  question    is,  were    they  to    suffer  those  little-minded,    decrepit, 
d,  one-eyed  scoundrels,    who   call    themselves   the   House  of 
1  md  them  any  longer  of  their  rights?" 

I  r  of  the  House  of  Commons  then,  and  did 

not   -  in    for  any  part  of  that  lively  personal  description; 

k  the  right   hon.  gentleman   if  someone  as  nearly  con- 

ted    with    the  hon.  number  for  the  City  of  Cork  as  Mr 

.  with  the  right  hon.  gentleman,  had  used  words 

to  a  meeting  of  Irishmen,  what  would  he 

:li,l?     The  riots  in    Hyde  Park  took  place,  and  people 

&     ! '  m  I  "J     There  was  no  cry  of  "  Ques- 


Justin  McCarthy  in  Defence  of  his  Party,     257 

tion "  when  the  right  hon.  gentleman  was  defaming  me  and 
others,  and  went  over  land  and  sea  and  over  years  to  find 
charges  against  us.  It  is  quite  to  the  question.  I  want  to 
say  to  him  and  the  House  that  it  is  impossible  in  any  move- 
ment to  hold  the  leaders  responsible  for  every  idle  word  and 
act  said  and  done  by  their  followers.  Of  this  movement  Mr 
Beales  was  the  leader,  and  when  the  right  hon.  gentleman  and 
his  friends  came  into  power,  did  they  repudiate  Mr  Beales? 
They  made  him  a  County  Court  Judge.  Did  they  at  any  time, 
while  these  proceedings  were  going  on,  repudiate  the  language 
of  any  man  ?  No.  There  was  a  newspaper  in  London  at  the 
time,  of  which  the  right  hon.  gentleman  sitting  near  him  (Mr 
John  Bright)  knew  something,  in  which  a  writer,  not  now  living, 
had  once  called  on  the  people,  if  a  certain  thing  were  not  done, 
to  destroy  the  House  of  Lords,  and  to  strew  the  Thames  with 
the  wreck  of  their  painted  chamber.  I  ask  the  right  hon. 
gentleman,  who  took  in  that  paper,  whether  he  read  it  or  not  ? 
{Cries  of"  Morning  Star."]  Yes,  The  Morning  Star.  [Mr  W.  E. 
Forster. — "I  was  not  a  shareholder."]  The  matter  was  brought 
to  the  notice  of  this  House  by  an  hon.  member,  and  I  am 
not  aware  that  the  right  hon.  gentleman  said  one  single  word  in 
condemnation  of  that  language.  And  remember,  Mr  Speaker, 
that  the  time  of  the  Hyde  Park  riots  was  not  a  time  of  peace. 
We  have  heard,  again  and  again,  that  things  may  be  allowed 
in  time  of  peace  ;  but  that  was  not  a  time  of  peace.  Those 
were  dangerous  times.  Troops  were  kept  in  readiness — the 
air  was  full  of  danger.  During  the  whole  of  that  time  the 
right  hon.  gentleman  never  said,  as  far  as  I  know,  one  word  to 
dissociate  himself  or  any  of  his  friends  from  those  acts  or 
words.  I  should  like  to  ask  the  right  hon.  gentleman  another 
question.  Did  he  never  hear  at  that  time  that  a  famous  Con- 
tinental leader  of  revolution  was  over  in  London,  and  was  in 
negotiation  with  some  of  the  men  concerned  in  these  affairs, 
with  the  hope  of  assisting  them  in  a  Democratic  revolution  ? 
[Mr  W.  E.  Forster.—"  No."]  He  never  heard  of  it  ?  He 
never   read  any  of  the  papers  published  at  that  time  ?     He 

R 


Modem  Political  Orations. 

I     histories     published    since    that    time?      Over 

gain— in  newspapers,  magazines,  and  books— has  the 

e  foreign  incendiary  been  told,  and  the  right  hon. 

leman  never  heard  of  it  or  read  of  it ;    and  yet  he  sup- 

|  ry  cony  of  The  Irish  World! 

ink  I  have  sufficiently  shown  that  the  right  hon.  gentle- 

t  to  be  cautious  how  he  makes  charges  against  us  of 

v  with  assassination,  or  of  having  assisted  or  connived 

s,  and  how  he  lays  down  the  theory  that  a  man  is 

md  to  know  what  is  done  by  everybody  else  who  is  con- 

■d  with  him  in  any  popular  movement.     I  will  tell  the  right 

tleman   and    the    House    how    outrages    grew    up  in 

nd  of  late.     The  Land  League  was  formed  with  the  full 

and  deliberate  intent  of  drawing  agitation  above  the  surface. 

t  was  its   motive.     Its   purpose    was    to    maintain  public 

platforms  on  which  agitation  might  go  on  openly  and  in  the 

of  day,    by   which    men   would  be  withdrawn   from   that 

terrible  system  of  conspiracy  which  has  been  the  bane  and 

curse  of  Ireland  for  so  many  years.     That   was  the  motive  of 

the  Land  League.     I  saw  that  was  its  distinct  purpose,  and  it 

manifestly  in  the  purpose  that  I  joined  the 

gue.     Tiie  right  hon.  gentleman  expects  that  everyone  has 

every  letter  written  by  everyone  else.     I   should  ask  him 

e  did  me  the  favour  of  reading  a  letter  of  mine  which  was 

published  in  all  the  papers  in  England  in  reference  to  my  join- 

-  the  I. and  League  ?    [Mr  W.  E.  Forster. — "  No."]     He  did 

He  only  reads  The  Irish  World,  and  I  did  not  write  to 

World  to  explain   my  intentions.     In  that  letter  I 

nd  clearly  my  reasons  for  believing  the  Land 

lid  do  good,  and  why  I  thought  it  was  the  duty  of 

/patriot  man   to  join  it.     I  believed  it  was  doing 

»il   by  helping  to  close  the  era  of  conspiracy.     But  there 

upon  Ireland  one  autumn  and  one  winter  three  influences 

iei     famine,  the  House  of  Lords,  and  the  right 

nan.      The    country   was    miserably  pinched    with 

I  louse  of  Lords  rejected  the  poor  little  Compen- 

rbance  bill,  which  might  have  stopped  for  a 


Justin  McCarthy  in  Defence  of  his  Party.    259 

while  the  sufferings  of  the  people  ;  and  then,  to  improve  the 
situation,  the  right  hon.  gentleman  got  his  law  for  the  arrest  of 
suspicious  men,  under  which  he  flung  the  leaders  of  the  people 
into  prison.  Then  it  was  that  outrages  began  to  increase. 
After  the  arrest  of  the  hon.  member  for  the  City  of  Cork  the 
movement  drifted  leaderless  and  hopeless,  dropped  from  the 
high  point  to  which  it  had  risen  in  publicity  and  on  the  plat- 
form, into  the  seething  ferment  of  the  sea  of  conspiracy.  The 
leaders  of  the  land  movement  had  nearly  succeeded  in  raising 
Ireland  out  of  conspiracy.  That  is  what  I  fully  and  firmly 
believe,  and  thus  History  hereafter  will  I  am  certain  write  it  out. 
The  Chief  Secretary  to  the  Lord-Lieutenant  made  a  serious 
mistake  when  he  appealed  to  us  to-night  to  justify  all  manner 
of  executions  simply  on  the  ground  that  so  many  murders  had 
been  committed.  It  is  not  the  theory  of  this  country  that  for 
so  many  murders  there  shall  be  so  many  executions.  That  is 
the  theory  of  certain  Eastern  States  ;  but  that  is  happily  not 
yet  the  theory  even  in  Ireland.  Were  the  murders  ten  times 
more  in  number  than  the  men  put  on  trial  for  them,  I  should 
be  at  liberty  still,  if  I  thought  I  had  reason,  to  examine  into 
the  justice  of  each  trial  and  the  way  in  which  it  had  been 
conducted  ;  and  if  it  could  be  shown  that  there  was  anything 
like  systematic  jury-packing  in  even  one  trial,  no  matter  how 
many  murders  had  been  committed,  I  should  denounce  it. 

The  right  hon.  gentleman  seemed  a  little  hopeful  towards 
the  end  of  his  speech  when  he  spoke  of  the  great  decrease  of 
outrages,  and  when  there  was  drawn  from  him  the  statement 
that  there  was  also  a  decrease  of  evictions.  In  searching  for 
the  causes  which  had  led  to  this  decrease  of  outrages,  the  fact 
of  the  decrease  of  evictions  must  not  be  overlooked.  The 
right  hon.  gentleman  then  became  a  little  more  ominous  in 
saying  that  he  feared  that  lately  evictions  had  been  on  the 
increase.  Was  it  not  possible  that  with  the  increase  of  evic- 
tions might  come  an  increase  of  outrages  ?  It  must  be  remem- 
bered that  there  is  now  no  such  thing  as  the  right  of  public 
meeting  or  free  speech  in  Ireland.     A  man  may  make  a  speech 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

'  he  likes  at  his  own  risk ;  but  the  right  hon.  gentleman  tells 

us   that   if  he   thinks  there  is  anything   in  the  speech  which 

ght  lead  to  inflame  the  feelings  of  anyone,  he  will  prevent  or 

sh  the  making  of  such  speeches,  although  he  knows  the 

•aker  had  no  evil  intention  whatever.     There  is  no  free  plat- 

•iii  in  Ireland;  no  free  Press — no  right  to  hold  a  public 

There   is   no   way   in   which   the   sentiments   and 

vances  of  the  people  can  be  freely  expressed.     You  are 

labouring  in  the  dark.     You  are  driving  disaffection  beneath 

the  surface.     You  alone  will  be  responsible  for  the  consequences 

of  the  terrible  and  stringent  measures  you  have  adopted.     As 

the  hon.  member  for  the  City  of  Cork  said,  there  is  no  longer 

any  probability  of  the   Irish    Leaders  or  Irish   Members  of 

Parliament  standing  between  you  and  the  elements  of  con- 

icy.     I  do  not  blame  the  right  hon.  gentleman  the  Chief 

retary  so  much  for  the  change  that  has  come  about.     The 

lOnsibility  for  that  change  I  lay,  as  I  have  already  said,  on 

the  shoulders  of  another  man.     I  may  say  of  him,  as  was  said 

of  another  famous  politician,  that  it  has  seldom  been  within  the 

er  of  any  human  creature  to  do  so  much  good  as  the  rieht 

hun.  gentleman  for  Bradford  has  prevented. 


LORD  RANDOLPH  CHURCHILL  ON 
THE  EGYPTIAN  CRISIS. 

Prince's  Hall,  Piccadilly,  February  i6th,  1884. 

[The  fall  of  Sinkat  and  the  massacre  of  its  garrison  excited  the  most  bitter 
indignation  in  all  Conservative  minds.  When  the  announcement  was 
made  in  the  House  of  Lords  on  the  12th  inst.,  Lord  Salisbury  moved  a 
vote  of  censure  on  the  Government,  describing  its  policy  pursued  in  Egypt 
as  "  vacillating  and  inconsistent,"  and  also  as  "an  act  of  blood-guiltiness." 
A  similar  vote  was  maved  in  the  House  of  Commons  by  Sir  Stafford 
Northcote.  Indignation  meetings  were  held  every  where,  and  the  Liberal 
Government  seemed  tottering  to  its  fall.] 

Mr  Algernon  Borthwick,  My  Lords  and  Gentlemen, — 
I  rise  for  the  purpose  of  moving  the  first  Resolution,  and  in 
order  that  we  may  consider  that  Resolution  with  advantage,  I 
would  beg  all  these  gentlemen  here,  who  do  not  altogether 
concur  with  the  views  which  we  are  going  to  expound,  to  listen 
to  the  discussion  with  equanimity,  and,  if  possible,  to  reply  to 
the  arguments  we  may  urge.  [A  Voice. — "  They're  for  an 
Amendment."]  It  would  conduce  more  to  the  dignity  of  a 
London  meeting,  it  will  conduce  more  to  the  maintenance  of 
the  high  character  of  the  citizens  of  this  great  Metropolis,  if 
any  gentlemen  who  have  counter  opinions  to  urge  to  those  of 
the  majority  of  the  meeting,  will  come  to  the  platform  and 
address  us.  We  have,  Gentlemen,  to-day  to  set  an  example  to 
the  country  :  let  us  first  set  an  example  of  order.  The  Resolu- 
tion which  I  have  to  propose  is  in  these  terms  : — "  That  in  the 
opinion  01  this  meeting,  Her  Majesty's  Government  are  solely 


Modem  Political  Oi  at ions. 

responsible  for  the  anarchy  which  prevails  in  Egypt,  and  the 
led  which  has  occurred,  and  which  is  imminent  in  the 
oudan,  and  that  the  vacillating  and  pusillanimous  policy  of 
the  Ministers  deserves  the  severest  censure  of  the  country." 

arc  gathered  together  this  afternoon  for  a  serious  pur- 
•  no  other,  indeed,  than  to  pronounce,  after  due  delibera- 
the  strongest   and   most  resolute  condemnation   of  Mr 
Istone's  Egyptian  Policy,  and  our  detestation  and  abhorrence 
of  the  bloodshed  and  misery  of  which  he  has  been  the  immediate 
and   direct   cause.     I   say   Mr   Gladstone's    Egyptian   Policy, 
because  I  utterly  decline  to  recognise  as  responsible   agents 
either  his  Ministerial  colleagues  or  his  Parliamentary  supporters. 
Those  parties  have   so  wallowed  in  a  stifling  morass  of  the 
most  degraded  and  servile  worship  of  the  Prime  Minister  that 
they  have  sunk  below  the  level  of  slaves  ;  they  have  become 
mere  puppets,  the  objects  of  derision  and  contempt ;  they  have 
lost  all  claim  to  the  title  of  Englishmen,  and  I  think  they  have 
lost  all  claim  to  the  title  of  rational  human  beings.     To  give 
you  an  instance  of  the  abject  imbecility  which  has  struck  down 
the   Liberal   Party,    I  would  mention   what   occurred   in  the 
House  of  Commons  on  Thursday  night.     Mr  Forster  in  that 
h  which  he  made  that  evening — a  speech  in  which 
he  promised  one  vote  to  the  Government  in   the  House  of 
Commons,  and  alienated  a  hundred  thousand  votes  from  the 
iment  in  the  country— Mr  Forster,  I  say,  expressed  the 
opinion  that  the  Government  ought  to  have  rescued  the  garrison 
Sinkat     "How?"  cried  out  some    importunate    Liberals, 
was     the    plaintive    cry   they   raised.       "  How  ? " 
I   Mr  Forster,  turning  upon  them,  so  that  they  wished 
tin  v  a  hundred  leagues  under  the  sea,  "How?  why,  by 

doii  :  irtnight  earlier  what  they  are  doing  now,   sending 

to  the  garrison's  rescue."     There  is  a  good 
:    the  hopeless  and  incurable    mental  alienation  to 
which  the  once  free  and  inde]  endent  Liberal  Part)-  have  been 
1    by    Mr    Gladstone!       It  was    indeed    a    melancholy 

le. 


Randolph  Churchill  on  the  Egyptian  Crisis.   263 

I  said  that  our  purpose  this  afternoon  was  a  serious  one,  and 
it  is  so.  It  is  a  serious  thing  for  Englishmen  to  meet  together 
in  open  day  for  the  purpose  of  doing  all  they  can  to  destroy 
a  Government.  But  we  are  not  alone.  Thousands  of  your 
countrymen  have  already  met,  and  thousands  more  will  meet, 
animated  by  the  same  feelings  as  yourselves,  and,  like  your- 
selves, resolved  to  exhaust  their  energies  in  a  supreme  effort 
to  avert  further  disgrace  from  our  names,  future  defeat  from 
our  army,  and  ultimate  ruin  from  our  country,  by  dashing  from 
his  pride  of  place  the  evil  and  moonstruck  Minister  who  has 
brought  England  into  grievous  peril.  Perilous,  I  say,  is  our 
condition,  for  it  is  perilous  for  a  country  to  shed  human  blood 
in  vain  ;  it  is  perilous  for  a  country  to  assume  responsibilities 
which  it  is  too  cowardly  to  discharge ;  it  is  perilous  for  a 
country  to  permit  its  foreign  interests  to  be  in  such  a  condition 
that  any  morning  we  may  awake  to  hear  Europe  demanding 
reparation  and  even  vengeance.  Once  again,  for  the  fourth 
time  in  four  years,  do  the  Ministry,  whose  programme  was 
peace,  and  whose  component  parts  were  Quakers,  call  upon 
you  to  give  them  authority  to  wage  a  bloody  war.  Of  their 
former  wars  the  results  have  been  either  infamous  or  futile — 
infamy  in  the  south  of  Africa ;  futility  in  the  north  of  Africa. 
Will  you,  I  ask,  with  these  memories  still  fresh  in  your  minds, 
permit  these  false  guides  again  to  direct  your  course  ?  There 
can  be  but  one  answer.  If  war  is  again  to  be  urged  ;  if  British 
blood  and  British  treasure  are  again  to  be  poured  forth ;  if 
the  regeneration  of  Egypt  and  the  East  is  once  more  to  be 
taken  in  hand,  then  other  heads  must  do  the  work,  and  other 
policies  must  be  pursued.  A  Parliament  which  has  long 
ceased  to  represent  England  must  be  dissolved,  and  a  Ministry, 
for  a  parallel  to  which  you  must  go  back  to  the  days  of 
Shaftesbury  or  Lord  North,  must  be  placed  on  its  trial  by  the 
people.  We  have  to  provide  for  the  safety  of  the  hero  Gordon  ; 
for  the  safety  of  the  4,000  British  soldiers  sent  to  Suakim  ;  for 
the  safety  of  the  garrisons  of  the  Soudan,  30,000  souls  in  all, 
whose  one  and  only  hope  is  now  reposed  in  you.     Above  all, 


Modern  Political  Orations. 


have  to  provide  for  the  safety  of  our  position  in  the  Delta 
of  the  Nile.     Shall  labours  such  as  these,  interests  so  tremen- 
dous and  so  vital,  be  committed  to  the  hands  of  Mr  Gladstone 
ues,  men  who  have  on  their  souls  the  blood  of 
re  oi  Maiwand,  the  blood  of  the  massacre  of  Lang's 
ood  of  George  Colley,  the  blood  of  Lord  Frederick 
ndish  and   Mr  Burke,  and   many  other   true  and   loyal 
subjects  of  the  Crown  in  Ireland,  the  blood  of  Hicks  Pasha 
and  his    10,000  soldiers,  the  blood  of  the  army  of  General 
the  blood  of  Tewfik  Bey  and  his  500  heroes?     For 
four  years  this  Ministry  has  literally  waded  in  blood;   their 
hands  are  literally   dripping  and   reeking  with  blood.     From 
massacre  to  massacre  they  march,  and  their  course  is  inefface- 
ably  stamped  upon  the  history  of  the  world  by  an  overflowing 
stream  of  blood.     How  many  more  of  England's  heroes — how 
many  more  of  England's  best  and  bravest,  are  to  be  sacrificed 
to  the   Moloch  of  Midlothian?     This,   too,  is  shocking  and 
horrible — the   heartless   indifference   and    callousness    of   the 
Libera]  Party  to  narratives  of  slaughter  and  unutterable  woe. 
Fifteen  times  did  Mr  Gladstone  on  Tuesday  night  in  his  reply 
to  the  grave  and  measured  accusations  of  Sir  Stafford  Northcote 
— fifteen  times,  I  say,  did  he  excite  the  laughter  of  his  Liberal 
supporters   with    a   frivolity  which   was  too   hideous  to  con- 
template.    Talk  of  Bulgarian  atrocities!     Add  them  together, 
and  even   multiply  them  if  you  will,  and  you  will  not  exceed 
the  total  of  the  atrocities  and  the  infamies  which  have  dis- 
uished  with  an  awful  reputation  the  most  blood-stained  and 
withal  the  most   cowardly   Government   which    England    has 
n. 
W<  .1,  we  are  me1  together  this  afternoon  as  loyal  subjects  of 
ml  as  lovers  of  our  country  for  this  purpose,  and 
only     to  put  a  stop  to  further  wicked  and  wanton 
todshed      We   know    that   great    empires    must    sometimes 
it  battles,  and  that  empires  which  fear  to  light  battles 
to  he  empires  ;  but  we  are  resolved  that  the 
■lii,  b   we  have   to   light  shall  be  lought  for  definite 


Randolph  Churchill  on  the  Egyptian  Crisis.   265 

objects  and  for  noble  ends,  and  that  poltroons  and  traitors,  in 
the  garb  of  Ministers  of  the  Crown,  shall  sacrifice  no  longer 
for  worthless  and  degraded  aims  the  life-blood  of  our  country. 
The  supporters  of  the  present  Government  exclaim  that  the 
Tory  Party,  although  prodigal  of  censure,  is  deficient  in  a 
policy  of  its  own  ;  and  with  many  taunts  they  call  upon  us  to 
disclose  the  direction  in  which  our  efforts  would  be  turned  in 
the  event  of  a  change  in  the  Councils  of  the  Crown.  The 
demand  cannot  be  considered  unfair,  and  the  reply  is  not  so 
difficult  as  some  people  seem  to  think.  We  recognise  to  the  very 
uttermost  the  immense  responsibilities  which  this  country  has 
incurred  towards  Egypt,  and  towards  the  interests  of  Europe 
there,  and  to  the  discharge  of  these  responsibilities  we  would  be 
prepared  to  apply  all  the  resources,  if  need  be,  of  the  Empire 
of  the  Queen ;  and  till  those  responsibilities  are  satisfied  we 
would  neither  stop  nor  stay.  The  history  of  the  Tory  Party  in 
the  past  is,  I  fearlessly  assent,  an  ample  guarantee  that  the 
recognition  of  a  responsibility  and  the  full  discharge  of  a 
responsibility  are  inseparable  and  consequential.  I  cannot 
claim  to  have  the  smallest  share  in  the  Councils  of  the 
leaders  of  the  Tory  Party,  whoever  they  may  be — and  there- 
fore, as  far  as  they  are  concerned,  I  speak  without  authority. 
But  having  studied  with  some  care  the  history  of  our  Party 
in  the  past,  possessing  an  unbounded  faith  in  its  future,  and 
being  not  altogether  ignorant  of  the  state  of  public  opinion,  I 
will  venture  to  say  this  much — that  the  policy  of  the  Tory 
Party,  should  it  be  placed  in  power,  will  be  the  policy  of 
calling  things  by  their  right  names.  The  occupation  of 
Egypt  by  the  British  forces  will  be  called  a  Protectorate  of 
Egypt  by  the  British  Empire,  having  for  its  object  the 
establishment,  in  process  of  time,  of  a  Government  at  Cairo, 
which  shall  be  consonant  with  the  legitimate  and  laudable 
aspirations  of  the  Egyptian  people,  which  shall  be  able  to 
protect  itself  alike  from  internal  tumult  and  from  foreign 
intrigue,  which,  while  it  shall  develop  the  undoubted 
resources   of  Egypt,  shall   faithfully   discharge   the    equitable 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

ies  of  its  people,   and  which,   as  far  as  human  govern- 
ments can  do,  shall  give  promise  of  prosperity  and  happiness  in 
ad  of  the  Nile.     We  are  now  in  Egypt  by  the  sufferance 
of  Europe,  but  we  must  endeavour  to  be  in   Egypt  by  the 
date  of  Europe.     Our  Protectorate,  to  be  effective,  and 
authoritative,   and   secure,    should   be    acquiesced    in    by    a 
European   Congress,    in  which   Turkey   shall   be    adequately 
ted  and  the  rights  and  powers  of  the  Sultan  loyally 
secured.     Our  Protectorate,  if  it  is  to  be  crowned  with  success, 
must  not  shrink  from  dealing  comprehensively  and  boldly  with 
financial  indebtedness  of  Egypt,  even  though  such  dealing 
ould   involve  some  pecuniary  liability  on   ourselves.     The 
.,  if  you  undertake  it,  will  be  a  work  of  time — perhaps  a 
time.     It  will  be  a  work  of  difficulty,  and  perhaps  a  work 
of  danger  ;  but  it  would  also  be  a  work  of  duty  and  a  work  of 
:   and  from  work   of  that  kind  Britain  has  never  yet 
L-d.     It  is  a  work  which,  if  courageously  persisted  in,  will 
i  losely  to  us  than  heretofore  the  sympathies  of  the 
Mohammedan  races,  and  will  establish  on  deeper  foundations 
our  dominions  in  the  East.     Our  aims  are  honour,  peace,  and 
lorn,  and  we  should    not  shrink  from  prosecuting  those 
aims,  if  need  be,  by  force  of  arms.     Conscious  of  their  mag- 
nimity,  we  would   go    boldly   forward,    knowing   well   that 
the   results  of  our  policy  would  surely  be  to  undo  the  heavy 
burdens  and  to  let  the  oppressed  go  free. 


THE  RT.  HON.  JOSEPH  CHAMBERLAIN 
ON  LIBERAL  AIMS. 

Birmingham,  June  3RD,   1885. 

[On  this  date  a  Deputation  of  the  Council  of  the  Western  Division  of 
Birmingham  waiter!  upon  Mr  Chamberlain  at  the  Forward  Club,  urging 
him  to  stand  for  that  Division  in  Parliament  in  the  forthcoming  General 
Election.     They  asked  him  for  no  pledge,  none  bt;ng  necessary.] 

Mr  Payton  and  Gentlemen, —  I  thank  you  very  much  for 
the  cordiality  with  which  you  have  invited  me  to  be  your 
representative  in  Parliament,  and  I  take  it  as  an  earnest 
of  the  spirit  and  the  genuine  kindness  with  which  I  may  hope 
to  be  received  by  the  constituency  itself.  I  think  you  will  not 
be  surprised  when  I  say  that  I  come  before  you  to-day  with 
mixed  feelings.  I  am  going,  I  hope,  to  be  your  member ;  but 
I  cannot  forget  that  I  am,  and  that  I  have  been,  the  represent- 
ative of  the  whole  of  this  great  constituency,  and  being  and 
having  been  member  for  Birmingham  is  really  a  very  proud 
thing  to  reflect  upon.  It  is  not  only  that  it  is,  I  believe,  the 
largest  of  the  constituencies  of  the  United  Kingdom  ;  at  the 
time  of  the  last  general  election  we  numbered,  I  think, 
something  like  65,000  registered  electors,  and  other  towns 
of  larger  population,  like  Liverpool  and  Glasgow,  could  only 
muster  a  few  over  60,000.  It  is  not  merely  the  size  of  the 
borough  which  has  made  it  an  honour  to  represent  it,  it  is 
also  the  great  influence  which  it  has  so  continuously  exercised 
upon  the  political  life  and  the  legislation  of  the  country  ;  and 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

to  re;  resent  in  the  future  10,000  of  my  fellow-townsmen  after 

represented   65,000,  is   like   living  in  a  cottage  after 

\  resided  in  a  palace.     [Laughter.']     At  the  same  time,  I 

"that  the  difference  is  more  apparent  than  real,  and  that 

shall  continue  to  preserve  the  unity  of  this  great  constitu- 

:  and  that  although  none  of  the  seven  members  whom  it 

will  now  enjoy  will  be  entitled  to  speak  authoritatively  in  the 

name  of  the  whole,  yet  that  as  a  body  we  shall  speak  with  the 

one  potent  voice  of  Birmingham,  united,  as  we  have  been  of 

yore,  in  the  pursuit  of  every  Liberal  measure. 

Well,  I  may  say  that  if  the  separation  was  to  take  place, 
there  is  no  division  of  the  town  which  it  would  be  personally 
more  gratifying  to  me  to  represent  than  this  W'estern  Division. 
Your  Chairman  has  already  alluded  to  the  reasons  which 
make  me  see  a  peculiar  fitness  in  the  invitation  which  you 
have  been  good  enough  to  address  to  me.  It  is  here  that  I 
made  my  first  entry  into  public  life.  I  believe  my  first 
tical  speech  was  made  in  a  schoolroom  in  All  Saints, 
under  the  presidency  of  my  friend  the  Chairman,  and  in 
support  of  the  candidature  of  Mr  Dixon  as  one  of  the 
members  for  Birmingham.  Afterwards  I  was  connected  with 
many  of  your  leading  citizens  in  establishing  that  undenomi- 
national school,  also  in  All  Saints,  which  gave  a  practical 
illustration  of  the  scheme  of  the  National  Education  League 
to  which  Mr  Payton  has  referred,  and  which  had  so  large  a 
part  in  carrying  the  measure,  of  the  advantages  of  which  he  has 
not  said  one  word  too  much.  As  to  St  Paul's  Ward,  I  am 
indeed  to  recollect  that  it  was  through  the  kindness  of 
the  1  of  St  Paul's  Ward  that   I  was  introduced  to  local 

mmenl   and   that   I    gained   my   experience  of  local   life, 
which  has  been  to  me   of  the  greatest   possible   value,    and 

which  has  | lined  in   my  mind  an   enduring   conviction   of 

importance  and  dignity  of  our  local  government,  and  an 

to  extend    its  functions   and   to   increase   the 

on  whom   it   may  be  conferred.      Well,    then, 

itlemen,  1  may  say  that  1  accept  with  gratitude  the  invitation 


Joseph  Chamberlain  on  Liberal  Aims.      269 

which  you  have  addressed  to  me.  If  there  is  to  be  opposition, 
I  have  no  doubt  that  we  shall  give  a  good  account  of  our- 
selves. And  whether  there  be  opposition  or  not,  I  have  no 
doubt  whatever  that,  if  life  is  spared  to  me,  somewhere  about 
the  end  of  November,  I  shall  be  the  member  for  the  Western 
Division  of  Birmingham. 

I  thank  those  who  have  already  addressed  you  for  the 
kindness  with  which  they  have  said  that  from  me  they  ask  no 
profession  of  faith.  Well,  it  is  true  that  my  public  and 
political  life  has  been  all  before  you,  and  there  is  probably 
no  subject  of  the  slightest  importance  on  which  you  do  not 
already  know  my  opinion,  and  with  regard  to  which  you  do 
not  know  that  I  will  not  do  all  that  in  me  lies  to  give  force 
to  that  opinion.  Of  course,  I  do  not  expect  that  my  opinion 
agrees  with  yours  upon  every  subject  or  upon  every  detail. 
That  would  be  to  presuppose  that  you  yourselves  are  entirely 
agreed,  which  is  more,  perhaps,  than  I  have  a  right  to  expect, 
even  from  the  constituency  which  I  aspire  to  represent.  No, 
Gentlemen,  but  though  we  may  differ  sometimes  upon  details, 
and  sometimes  upon  methods,  I  believe  that  we  are  agreed 
upon  the  main  lines  of  Liberal  policy,  and  that  we  shall 
always  be  found  shoulder  to  shoulder  in  endeavouring  to 
secure  their  general  acceptance.  Now,  this  invitation,  and  the 
signs  of  activity  which  are  everywhere  around  us,  are  proofs 
that  we  have  arrived  at  a  stage  in  our  political  history.  The 
old  order  is  passing  away ;  the  new  order  is  beginning  to  make 
itself  felt.  I  am  not  generally  much  inclined  to  indulge 
in  political  retrospect — I  am  more  ready  to  say,  "Let  the 
dead  past  bury  its  dead  ;  our  business  is  with  the  present 
and  with  the  future " ;  but  standing  here,  as  I  do,  at  the 
turning  of  the  ways,  I  will  venture  to  assert  that  when  the 
history  of  the  last  five  years  comes  to  be  written,  neither  the 
Government  of  which  I  have  the  honour  to  be  a  member, 
nor  the  Parliament  which  was  returned  to  power  with  such 
tremendous  enthusiasm  five  years  ago,  will  have  any  cause 
to  fear  its  verdict.     When  that  history  comes  to  be  written 


Modem  Political  Orations. 


you  know  whose  will  be  the   central   and  prominent  figure. 

hat  Mr  Gladstone  will  stand  out  before  posterity 

test  man  of  his  time— remarkable  not  only  for  his 

iry  eloquence,  for  his  great  ability,  for  his  steadfast- 

5  of  purpose,  for  his  constructive  skill,  but  more,  perhaps, 

han  all  these,  for  his  personal  character,  and  for  the  high  tone 

hat  he  has  introduced  into  our  politics  and  public  life.     I 

sometimes  think  that  great  men  are  like  great  mountains,  and 

hat  we  do  not  appreciate  their  magnitude  while  we  are  close 

em.     You  have  to  go  to  a  distance  to  see  which  peak 

it  is  that  towers  above  its  fellows ;  and  it  may  be  that  we  shall 

have  to  put  between   us  and  Mr  Gladstone  a  space  of  time 

before  we  shall  see  how  much  greater  he  has  been  than  any 

of  his  competitors  for  fame  and  power.     I   am  certain   that 

justice  will  be  done  to  him  in  the  future,  and  I  am  not  less 

certain  that  there  will  be  a  signal  condemnation  of  those  men 

who,  moved  by  motives  of  Party  spite  in  their  eagerness  for 

ive  not  hesitated  to  load  with  insult  and  indignity  the 

greatest  statesman  of  our  time,  who  had  not  allowed  even  his 

which  should  have   commanded  their  reverence,   or  his 

rience,  which  entitled  him  to  their  respect,   or  his  high 

personal  character,  or  his  long  service  to  his  Queen  and  to  his 

country,  to  shield  him  from   the   vulgar   affronts   and   lying 

accusations  of  which  he  has  nightly  been  made  the  subject 

in  the  House  of  Commons.     He,  with  his  great  magnanimity, 

can  afford  to  forget  and  forgive  these  things  ;  those  whom  he 

has  served  long  it  behoves  to  remember  them,  to  resent  them, 

and  to  punish  them. 

Now,  I  have  said,  Gentlemen,  that  I  do  not  think  that  this 

Parliament  will  have  any  cause  to  fear  the  verdict  of  History. 

Just   contrast    it    for   a    moment   with    the    Parliament  which 

That    was   a   Parliament   and   a    Government 

which  came  into  power  under  the  most  exceptionally  favour- 

e  circumstances.      Inland  was  contented,  there  was  peace 

-  the  world,  the  finances  were  in  the  most  admirable 

r  was  there  a  better  opportunity  for  a  great  and 


Joseph  Chamberlain  011  Liberal  Aims.      271 

patriotic  statesman  to  promote  measures  of  urgent  domestic 
importance,  and  yet  I  venture  to  say  that  during  the  whole 
existence  of  that  Parliament,  with  the  exception,  perhaps,  of 
the  Artisans'  Dwellings  Act  of  Sir  Richard  Cross,  which  was, 
unfortunately,  an  unsuccessful,  but  which  was,  I  believe,  a 
well-meant  attempt  to  grapple  with  a  great  social  evil — with 
that  exception  there  is  not,  1  believe,  one  single  Act  to  which 
the  future  historian  will  deem  it  necessary  to  make  even  a 
passing  reference. 

But  now,  when  we  came  into  power,  everything  was 
changed.  There  was  trouble  all  over  the  world.  South 
Africa  was  in  a  state  of  anarchy  :  there  had  been  war,  shortly 
to  be  renewed,  in  Afghanistan  ;  Ireland  was  dissatisfied,  and 
was  on  the  eve  of  the  greatest  agitation  which  has  ever  con- 
vulsed that  country  since  the  Tithe  War ;  the  finances  were  in 
hopeless  confusion ;  and  yet,  in  spite  of  all  these  things, 
in  spite  of  obstruction  carried  with  the  tacit  approval  of  the 
leaders  of  the  Tory  Party  up  to  the  height  of  a  science,  and  in 
spite  of  the  most  factious  Opposition  that,  I  believe,  this 
country  has  ever  known,  there  has  not  been  a  single  Session 
which  has  passed  without  measures  of  important  reform  finding 
their  place  in  the  Statute  Book,  without  grievances  being 
redressed  and  wrongs  being  remedied.  We  have  abolished 
flogging  in  the  army,  we  have  suspended  the  operation  of  the 
odious  Acts  called  the  Contagious  Diseases  Acts,  we  have 
amended  the  Game  Laws,  we  have  reformed  the  Burial  Laws, 
we  have  introduced  and  carried  our  Employers'  Liability  Bill, 
we  have  had  a  Bankruptcy  Act,  a  Patents  Act,  and  a  host  of 
secondary  measures,  which,  together,  would  have  formed  the 
stock-in-trade  of  a  Tory  Government  for  twenty  years  at  least ; 
and  yet  these  are  only  the  fringe,  only  the  outside,  of  the 
more  important  legislation  of  our  time,  the  chief  elements  in 
which  have  been  the  Irish  Land  Bill  and  the  Reform  Bill. 
The  Irish  Land  Bill  alone  is  a  monument  of  Mr  Gladstone's 
genius.  He  probably  was  the  only  man  who  could  have 
successfully  dealt   with  so  gigantic,    so  complicated,  and   so 


Modem  Political  Orations. 


:  a  subject.     But  he  has  passed  two   great   measures 

with   that   subject,   giving   to    the    Irish    tenant    full 

security  of  tenure,  and  now,  at  all  events,  he  enjoys  in  their 

entirety  all   the   improvements   which   he   may  make   in    his 

holding.     And  sometimes,  Gentlemen,  I  cannot  but  wish  that 

rals  would  have  a  little  more  faith  in  their  principles,  and 
a  little  more  trust  in  the  remedial  legislation  which  they  have 

ted  to  pass.  If  Ireland  is  pacified  at  th^e  present  moment 
I  do  not  attribute  it  to  Coercion  Bills  ;  I  attribute  it  to  the 
reform  of  the  Land  Laws  and  to  the  removal  of  the  deep- 

d  Agrarian  grievance  of  the  Irish  peasant.  Coercion 
may    be    necessary    at    times.       Murder,    and   outrage,   and 

ssination  are  things  which  no  Government  can  tolerate, 
which  no  honest  man  will  lift  a  finger  to  approve;  and  when 
;e  things  stalk  through  the  land,  then  they  must  be  put 
down  at  all  hazards  and  at  all  risk,  by  every  means  within  the 
power  of  the  Legislature  and  of  the  Government.  But 
I  rcion  is  for  an  emergency.  It  is  nonsense  to  talk  of 
a  Constitutional  system  and  Constitutional  Government  if  the 
Constitution  is  always  being  suspended.  When  the  emergency 
is  over,  then  it  is  the  duty  of  wise  statesmen  to  seek  out  the 
>  auses  of  discontent  and  to  endeavour  to  remedy  them. 
Well,  I  believe  that  one  of  the  greatest  of  Irish  problems 
i-  still  before  us,  and  must  wait  for  its  solution  until  the  new 
Parliament,  whose  advent  we  anticipate  with  so  much  interest 
and  with  such  expectations.  Mr  Gladstone  has  removed  two 
of  the  greatest  grievances  of  Ireland.  He  has  disestablished 
an  alien  Church  and  he  has  reformed  the  Land  Laws.  But 
there  remains  a  question  as  important,  possibly  even  more 
important,  than  both  these  two,  and  that  is,  to  give  in  Mr 

[stone's  own  words,  the  widest  possible  self-government 
to   Ireland  which  is  consistent  with  the  maintenance  of  the 

rity  of  the  Umpire.     What  we  have  to  do  is  to  conciliate 

■  national  sentiment  of  Ireland.     We  have  to  find  a  safe 

tween  separation  on  the  one  hand,  which  would  be 

to   Ireland   and   dangerous   to    England,  and   that 


Joseph  Chamberlain  on  Liberal  Aims.     273 

excessive  concentralisation  on  the  other  hand,  which  throws 
upon  the  English  Parliament  and  upon  English  officials  the 
duty  and  burden  of  supervising  every  petty  detail  of  Irish  local 
affairs,  which  stifles  the  national  life,  which  destroys  ihe  sense 
of  responsibility,  which  keeps  the  people  in  ignorance  of  the 
duties  and  functions  of  Government,  and  which  produces  a 
perpetual  feeling  of  irritation,  while  it  obstructs  all  necessary 
legislation.  That  is  the  problem,  and  I  do  not  believe  that 
the  resources  of  statesmanship  are  exhausted,  or  that  it  will  be 
impossible  to  find  a  solution. 

We  are  going  to  have  a  new  Parliament,  when  for  the  first  time 
the  whole  people  will  be  represented.  We  shall  know  what  is 
the  authoritative  expression  of  the  wishes  of  the  majority  of 
the  people  of  Ireland.  That  is  a  great  thing,  and  this  authori- 
tative expression  of  the  wishes  of  the  people  of  Ireland  will  be 
submitted  to  the  judgment,  not  of  classes,  nor  of  those  who 
are  prejudiced  by  the  existence  of  privileges  or  by  separate  and 
individual  claims  and  rights,  but  to  the  whole  people  of  England 
and  Scotland.  And  when  I  think  how  much  importance  the 
English  and  the  Scotch  people  attach  to  local  Government, 
when  I  know  how  we  in  the  towns  prize  it,  when  I  know  how 
Liberals  in  the  country  desire  it,  when  I  know  how  Liberals 
in  the  Metropolis  are  asking  for  it,  I  do  not  believe  for  a 
moment  that  they  will  hesitate  before  conceding  to  Ireland 
all  the  liberties  and  all  the  freedom  which  they  will  claim  for 
themselves. 

Well,  now,  Gentlemen,  I  do  not  think  I  need  dilate  upon  the 
circumstances  or  the  manner  in  which  what  has  been  called  the 
greatest  reform,  the  greatest  Constitutional  reform  since  the 
Revolution  of  1688,  has  been  carried  through.  The  Tories 
opposed  it,  as  they  have  opposed  every  measure  of  reform,  as 
long  as  they  dared,  and  until  they  saw  the  passions  of  the 
people  were  so  aroused  that  it  would  be  dangerous  to  resist  any 
longer.  They  opposed  it  and  attempted  to  delay  it,  attempted 
to  minimise  it,  and  now  with  characteristic  effrontery,  they 
are  taking  the  credit  for  the  passing  of  a  measure,  which,  if 

S 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

their  power  had  been  equal  to  their  will,  we  should  never  have 
jen  upon  tiie  Statute-Book  of  the  land.     But  though  they  have 
red  their  language,  they  have  not  changed  their  tactics. 
We  have  had  a  taste  of  their  spirit,  even  within  the  last  few 
What  the  Tories  have  not  dared  to  do  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  they  have  put  up  their  confederates  in  the  House  of 
Lords    to   do   for    them,    and    by   making    medical   relief  a 
ualification  for  the  franchise,  they  have  taken  away  with  the 
one  hand  what  they  gave  with  the  other,  and  they  have  kept 
a  the  enjoyment  of  their  electoral  rights  probably  one- 
fourth  of  those  whom  we  sought  to  enfranchise. 

Well,  this  is  monstrous  injustice.  It  is  an  intolerable  thing 
that  a  poor  labourer,  with  his  12/  or  possibly  14/  a  week, 
should  be  placed  in  time  of  sickness  and  trouble  in  his  family 
een  the  alternative  of  either  losing  his  electoral  rights,  or 
of  leaving  his  family  without  the  assistance  which  medical  skill 
could  afford.  It  is  an  iniquity  which,  if  it  be  not  set  right  in 
the  present  Parliament,  it  will  be  the  first  duty  of  the  new 
Parliament  to  correct.  In  the  meantime  I  do  not  doubt  that 
the  new  electors,  those  of  them  to  whom  the  Lords  in  their  great 
mercy  have  still  left  their  votes,  will  know  how  to  judge  between 
the  two  parties  in  the  State,  and  will  know  what  trust  to  place 
in  the  assurances  which  the  leaders  of  that  party  are  giving  of 
their  confidence  in  the  people. 

W.ll,  Gentlemen,  if  I  were  to  stop  here,  although   I  think  I 
should  have  made  out  a  pretty  fair  case  for  our  domestic  policy, 
lould  lay  myself  open  to  the  remark,  "Oh,  but  you  have  said 
nothing  about  foreign  policy  ;  you  confess  then,  that  that  at  all 
events  is  a  failure,  and  that  there  you  have  broken  down."     I 
.on  not  going  to  confess  anything  of  the  kind  ;  I  am  not  going 
e  any  such  admission.     I  am  going  to  claim  your  sup- 
on  line  of  our  foreign  policy  just  as  earnestly, 
1  with  as  full  a  conviction  of  your  assent  as   I  have  claimed 
jpport  lor  our  domestic  policy.       I  do  not  say  that  we 
nade  mistakes.       I  think  it  would  be  a  very  extra- 
A( Immigration    indeed    which,     dealing    with    such 


Joseph  Chamberlain  on  Liberal  Aims.      275 

difficult  and  complicated  business  as  has  been  placed  before 
us  recently,  had  not  made  any  mistakes  ;  it  would  be  very 
wonderful  if,  looking  back  now  with  fuller  knowledge,  we  were 
not  able  to  put  our  finger  on  some  point  where  we  would  wish 
to  have  acted  differently  from  what  we  did ;  but  I  say,  for  the 
main  line  of  our  policy,  I  claim  your  approval,  and  of  the  main 
line  of  the  policy  of  our  opponents  I  ask  you  to  mark  your 
emphatic  dissent.  I  am  not  content,  however,  to  rest  entirely 
upon  the  fact  that  if  there  were  a  change  of  Government  the 
alternative  which  is  presented  to  you  by  the  Tories  is  not  a 
very  agreeable  one.  If  words  mean  anything,  and  if  the 
language  of  their  leaders  should  be  interpreted  by  the  law  of 
common  sense,  then  in  the  last  five  years,  if  Lord  Salisbury 
had  been  in  office,  we  should  have  been  at  war  with  two  at 
least  of  the  Great  Powers  of  Europe.  I  want  you  to  consider 
the  spirit  in  which  the  two  parties  have  addressed  themselves 
to  foreign  policy.  I  can  well  understand  that  there  are  some 
people,  many  perhaps  in  Birmingham,  who  are  in  favour  of 
what  is  called  absolute  non-intervention  in  the  affairs  of  other 
countries.  But,  Gentlemen,  although,  when  I  consider  the 
difficulties  in  which  intervention  has  frequently  landed  us,  I 
can  sympathise  with  such  a  feeling,  I  tell  you  plainly  that  it  is 
impracticable,  that  it  is  impossible  of  realization.  Our  relations 
are  so  far  spread,  we  have  so  many  interests  in  so  many  differ- 
ent parts  of  the  world,  that  we  could  not  even  if  we  would 
remain  absolutely  isolated  in  the  midst  of  what  is  taking  place 
around  us,  and  the  question  is,  In  what  spirit  are  we  to  address 
ourselves  to  the  communications  which  we  must  necessarily 
have  with  foreign  Powers  ?  Now,  if  we  may  assume  the  leaders 
of  the  Tory  party  to  speak  for  their  followers,  they  would 
address  themselves  to  any  foreign  nation  with  which  we  had 
matters  of  discussion  in  the  spirit  and  tone  of  a  superior  dic- 
tating his  will.  They  would  state  at  the  outset  the  demands 
which  they  make,  and  they  would  expect  those  demands  to  be 
instantly  and  entirely  complied  with.  They  would  not  abate 
one  jot,  they  would  yield  nothing  to  the  sensibility  of  others — 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

y  would  deal  with  all  those  questions  in  the  spirit  of  those 
word  should  always  be  law. 
I  do  not  think  this  is  a  tone  which  is  becoming  us, 
ich  it  is  right  or  which  it  is  prudent  for  a  Great  Power  to 
I  believe,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  Government  have 
en  justified  in  dealing  with  foreign  nations,  as  with  nations 
ntitled  to  equal  consideration  with  ourselves,  and  while  endeav- 
oring to  maintain  the  honour  and  interests  of  this  country,  not 
hat  account  to  ignore  altogether  the  honour  and  the  interests 
of  the  countries  with  which  we  have  had  to  deal.     Now,  I 
should  have  liked  to  have  said  something  at  length  upon  the 
Lis  of  our  recent  negotiations  with  Russia;  but  as  you  have 
i,  those  negotiations  are  not  finally  closed,  and  it  would  not, 
therefore,  be  permissible  for  me  to  deal  fully  with  the  communica- 
which  have  already  taken  place.    You  are  told  that  we  have 
led  basely  to  Russia,  that  we  have  compromised  the  inter- 
of  the  country.     Well,  Gentlemen,  all  I  will  say  is,  that  if 
it  be  found  when  the  whole  question   is  finally  and   happily 
-  ttled— as  I  hope  and  believe  it  shortly  will  be— if  it  is  then 
found  that  we  have  maintained  the  friendship  and  confidence 
of  the  Ameer  of  Afghanistan,  that  we  have  secured  for  our  ally 
all  that  he  himself  has  deemed  of  importance,  that  we  have 
lined  everything  that  the  Government  of  India  has  thought 
ry  for  the  security,  order,  and  credit  of  the  Empire,  we 
shall  not  in  that  case  be  held  to  have  failed,  even  though,  in 
maintaining  our  position,  we  may  have  dealt  with  a  great  nation 
in  a  spirit   ol    conciliation   and   of  consideration,   and,   while 
anxious  to  maintain  the  dignity  of  this  country,  have  been  also 
lise  tin-  claims  and  the  rights  of  the  Power  with 
'i  we  have  been  dealing.     Well  now,  it  is  in  the  same  spirit 
nducted  all  our  negotiations  and  communica- 
-.  with  our  neighbours  in   France,  and  you  will  not  doubt 
have  had  many  difficult  and  complicated  questions  to 
with  the  French  Government. 
id  that  luri'  also  we  have  truckled  to  the  French,  and 
have   betrayed    English    interests    and    exhibited    an 


Joseph  Chamberlain  on  Liberal  Aims.      27; 

unparalleled  pusillanimity.  Well,  I  would  just  say,  in  passing, 
that  these  are  statements  which  I  do  not  think  it  is  very 
patriotic  to  make  in  times  of  great  national  difficulty  and  em 
barrassment.  They  are  statements  which  are  very  apt  to  bring 
about  their  own  fulfilment ;  because  if  a  foreign  Power  learns  from 
the  leaders  of  a  great  party  in  this  country  that  the  Executive 
Government  of  the  day  is  cowardly,  weak,  vacillating,  and 
yielding,  and  that  this  foreign  Government  has  only  to  demand 
in  order  that  its  utmost  requirements  may  immediately  be 
satisfied,  I  think  you  will  say  such  a  thing  as  that  is  very  apt 
to  increase  the  demands  of  the  foreign  Government,  and  that 
it  is  not  at  all  likely  to  lead  to  a  satisfactory  settlement  of  our 
disputes.  When  I  was  in  Paris  the  other  day  I  was  struck  by 
a  rather  curious  coincidence.  When  I  left  London  the  Tory 
Peers  and  some  of  the  Tory  speakers  had  been  after  their 
wont  denouncing  the  Government  in  the  language  to  which 
I  have  already  referred,  but  when  I  got  to  France  I  found 
there  were  French  politicians,  French  Ashmead-Bartletts  and 
French  Randolph  Churchills,  who  were  using  precisely  similar 
language  concerning  the  Government  of  that  country ;  only  it 
was  the  other  side  of  the  shield  that  was  thus  presented  to  me  ; 
it  was  the  French  Government  who  was  truckling  to  the  arro- 
gance of  England,  whose  concessions  knew  no  bounds,  and 
who,  if  it  had  any  care  for  the  interests  of  France,  would 
immediately  issue  its  ultimatum  to  perfidious  Albion.  In  the 
last  article  I  read  before  I  left,  in  The  Times,  I  was  told  that  the 
limits  of  concession  on  the  part  of  the  Government  to  France 
must,  it  supposed,  at  last  have  been  reached.  In  the  first 
article  I  read  in  the  Debats,  a  most  ably  conducted  journal  in 
Paris,  I  found  the  French  Government  assailed  most  bitterly 
for  the  manner  in  which  it  had  yielded  everything  to  the  insol- 
ence of  England.  Well,  do  not  you  think  that  when  these 
things  are  being  said  on  both  sides,  perhaps  there  is  as  little 
truth  on  one  side  as  there  is  on  the  other,  and  that  perhaps 
both  Governments  are  wiser  than  these  irresponsible  writers  in 
the  Press,  who  risk  sometimes  a  breach  in  the  friendship  which 


:-8  Modern  Political  Orations. 

ought  to   exist  between   two   great   nations;  wiser   than   the 

:ians  whose  recklessness   endangered   the  peace  of  the 

world  ?     Do  not  you  think  it  possible  that  the  two  Govern- 

may  be  each  earnestly  seeking  to  conciliate  the  interests 

and  the  honour  of  their  respective  countries  ? 

I  will   not  apologise  for  saying  a  few  more  words  on  this 
tian   question,   because    I    attach   the   greatest   possible 
rt.mce  to  the  French  alliance.     The  friendship  between 
France  and  this  country  has  been  slowly  built  up  during  a 
ration,  it  has  done  a  great  deal  for  civilisation,  and  it  has 
helped  on  important  occasions  to  secure  the  peace  of  Europe. 
1       lieve  that  near  neighbours  as  we  are,  in  our  continued  and 
cordial  friendship  lies  the  best  guarantee  for  the  future  happi- 
i  of  both   our  nations ;   and   I  would  be  sorry  that  any 
temporary   misapprehension,    any    misrepresentation,    should 
.irdise  the  alliance  to  which  I  attach  so  great  an  import- 
ance.    Now  the  Egyptian  question  has  brought  us  face  to  face 
with  great  interests  and  a  natural  sensitiveness  on  the  part  of 
Fren<  hmen.      To   begin   with,    let   me   answer  the  question, 
"  Why  did  you  go  to  Egypt  ?  "     There  are  a  great  many  people 
who  think,  in  view  of  what  has  subsequently  occurred,  that  it 
would  have  been  wiser  if  we  had  kept  away  altogether ;  but 
then  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  what  the  alternative  wouM 
beea     We  also  have  got  interests  in  Egypt.     I  do  not 
k   now  of  the  sums  of  money  which  are  invested  there, 
whether  in  the  Debt  or  in  public  works  and  national  enter- 
1    do  not  speak  merely  of  the  great  trade  with  that 
ntry,   of  the   cotton   and    corn    which   come   from   Egypt 
:  ■    I      land,    anil    which   are    purchased   with   our   manufac- 
B  .:  !      ]'t  is  the  highway  to  India  and  to  our  Colonial 
i  lions  j  four-fifths  of  the  ships  that  traverse  the  Canal 

indet  the    English   flag,  and  probably  a  great  deal  more 
all  the  merchandise  which  they  bear  is  either 
!  or  C":  tween   England  and  her  own  possessions. 

iiite   impossible  that  any  Government  with  a  sense  of 
lability  should  ignore  these  vast  and  important 


Joseph  Chamberlain  on  Liberal  Aims.      279 

interests,  and  if  we  had  allowed  Egypt  to  become  the  prey  of 
anarchy  and  disorder,  and  if  subsequently  some  other  Power 
had  interfered  and  taken  possession  of  the  country,  I  do  not 
believe  that  the  Government  would  have  been  forgiven  ;  I  do 
not  believe  that  it  would  have  been  held  to  have  done  its  duty  ; 
and  I  do  not  believe  that  its  action  would  have  contributed  in 
the  long  run  to  the  peace  of  the  world. 

But  if  we  have  great  interests,  bear  in  mind  that  the  French 
have  interests  of  hardly  lesser  magnitude.  Probably  as  a  mere 
commercial  speculation,  they  are  less  engaged  in  Egyptian 
affairs  than  we  are  ;  but  then  you  will  not  forget  that  the  Suez 
Canal  itself  we  owe  to  the  genius  and  enterprise  of  a  great 
Frenchman,  who,  undeterred  by  ridicule,  by  opposition,  I  am 
afraid  I  must  almost  say  by  the  hostility  of  England,  so  ably 
carried  forward  that  great  enterprise,  which  has  done  an 
immense  deal  for  the  civilisation  and  advantage  of  the  world. 
It  is  not  possible  for  Frenchmen  to  dissociate  themselves  from 
the  honour  and  glory  which  attended  upon  the  successful 
conduct  of  so  great  a  matter ;  and  we  have  to  bear  that  in 
mind  when  we  find  that  our  neighbours  are  sensitive  on  the 
subject  of  our  interference.  Not  only  so  ;  but,  as  you  know, 
in  past  history  the  military  annals  of  France  have  gained  an 
added  glory  in  connection  with  the  enterprise  which  Napoleon 
successfully  carried  out  in  that  country,  so  that  we  have  to 
bear  with  Frenchmen  when  we  find  them,  more  perhaps  than 
other  nations,  susceptible  to  the  action  we  have  found  it  our 
duty  to  take.  We  thought  it  our  duty  to  consult  and  concert 
with  them,  and,  as  you  know,  in  the  first  instance  every  step 
was  taken  in  alliance  with  the  French  Government.  At  a 
certain  period — at  the  time  of  the  bombardment  of  Alexandria 
■ — the  French  Government  broke  off  from  that  alliance.  I  am 
not  complaining  of  their  action  ;  I  am  merely  reciting  facts. 
But  it  is  well  to  hear  in  mind  that  it  was  they  and  not  we  who 
first  severed  the  concert  which  up  to  that  time  had  existed. 
Well,  at  that  moment  there  were  two  courses  which  were  open  to 
us.     We  might  if  we  had  liked  have  taken  possession  of  Egypt ; 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

we  might  have  announced  a  protectorate  similar  to  the  French 
rate  of  Tunis,  or  we  might  have  annexed  the  country  as 
I  rench  have  annexed  Algiers.     I  suppose  at  that  time  such  a 
course  could  have  been  pursued  without  immediate  danger  of 
war ;  hut  the  Government  thought   it  was  assuming  a  respon- 
sibility altogether  outside  the  proper  sphere  of  English  duty 
and  of  English  interests.     The  Government  thought  that  we 
had  no  right  to  destroy  the  independence  of  Egypt.     They 
thought  that  we  had  no  right  to  assume  the  immense  respon- 
sibility which  would  follow  upon  our  becoming,  as  we  should 
;  done,  practically  a  European  nation,   and  so  losing  the 
advantage  which  our  insular  position  has  hitherto  given  us  ; 
and,  above  all,  we  did  not  think  it  was  worth  our  while,  or 
desirable,  or  right,  for  such  an  object  to  risk  the  friendship  of 
France,  to  which  we  attached  so  much  value.     Well,  then,  the 
alternative  was  this — the  alternative  was  that  we  should  remain 
in  Egypt  only  so  long  as  was  necessary  to  restore  order,  and 
that  then   we  should  come   away  without   having  sought  or 
obtained  any  territorial  aggrandisement  for  ourselves.      And 
when  that  policy  was  announced,   what  would  you  have  said 
would  have  been  the  duty  and  the  only  natural  course  of  a 
French  patriotic  statesman?     I   confess  I  should  have  said: 
'  We  are  dealing  with   a   Government   which  announces  its 
intention  in  such  a  way  as  to  afford  us  no  just  cause  of  offence. 
Government   has   declared   its   willingness   to   evacuate 
it  as  soon  as  order  is  re-established  ;  it  is  our  business  to 
it  to  its  pledges,  and    to   make   this  policy  as  easy  as 
ible  to   it."     Well,  I   must  confess  I   did  not  think  that 
although  it  appears  to  me  to  be  the  obvious  policy  of  French 
smen,  it  has   always   been   the  course  which  has  been 
pursued  by  the  French  Government. 

We  have  found  great  difficulties  thrown  in  our  way  both  in 
tion  with  the  administration  of  Egypt  and  also  in  con- 
on  with  the  re-arrangement  of  its  finances;  and  I  cannot 
nting  out  to  you,  and  through  you  to  others,  that  one 
effect  of  tins  policy  has  been  to  delay  the  evacuation  which 


Joseph  Chamberlain  on  Liberal  Aims.      281 

both  nations  have  equal  reason  to  desire,  to  postpone  it,  to 
make  it  difficult,  and  perhaps  even  in  the  last  resort  to  make  it 
impossible.  Now,  Gentlemen,  what  are  the  objects  with  which 
we  still  remain  in  that  country  ?  In  the  first  place  we  are 
bound  to  secure  the  independence  of  Egypt.  It  cannot  be 
tolerated  that  after  the  sacrifices  we  have  made,  our  going  away 
should  be  the  signal  for  another  Power  to  take  up  a  preponder- 
ating position  there.  We  have  a  right  to  ask,  we  have  a  right 
to  expect,  that  some  guarantee  will  be  given  to  us  that  other 
nations  will  be  as  self-denying  as  we  intend  to  be  ourselves 
before  we  can  leave  the  country.  But  we  have  also  something 
else  to  do.  We  have  a  duty  which  we  owe  to  the  Egyptians. 
We  have  to  provide  them  with  some  form  of  government  which 
is  likely  to  be  a  settled  one;  we  have  to  relieve  the  peasants 
from  excessive  or  unjust  taxation,  which  might  be  a  cause  of 
discontent  and  trouble  in  the  future ;  and  we  have  to  create 
some  kind  of  native  or  other  army  which  may  answer  for  the 
defence  of  the  country  against  external  enemies  and  against 
internal  disorder.  These  are  objects  surely  in  which  we  may 
seek  and  obtain  the  cordial  assistance  of  France,  and  which  are 
not  calculated  to  provoke  jealousy  or  alarm  among  other  nations 
of  the  Continent.  I  have  dwelt  upon  this  matter  because,  as  I 
say,  I  believe  that  some  of  the  unfriendliness,  which  I  fear  has 
sometimes  prevailed,  has  been  due  to  misunderstanding  and  to 
misapprehension,  and  because  I  believe  that  if  that  misapprehen- 
sion could  be  removed,  the  reasons  that  should  draw  the  two 
nations  together  are  so  strong  that  the  clouds  which  have 
hitherto  hung  over  our  alliance  will  be  entirely  and  speedily 
dispelled. 

Gentlemen,  I  feel  that  I  owe  you  an  apology  for  addressing 
you  at  such  length,  and  especially,  perhaps,  for  speaking  on 
subjects  which  are  rather  outside  the  ordinary  scope  and  limit 
which  I  have  fixed  to  my  political  addresses ;  but  I  have 
recently  had  more  than  one  opportunity  of  speaking  on  the 
future  domestic  policy  of  the  Liberal  party,  and  I  did  not  think 
that  on  this  occasion  it  was   necessary  that  I  should   repeat 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

myself.  I  have  nothing  to  :  Jd  to  what  I  have  already  said  in 
once  to  this  matter;  I  have  nothing  to  withdraw.  I  believe, 
and  I  rejoice  to  believe,  that  the  reduction  of  the  franchise  will 
into  prominence  social  questions  which  have  been  too 
neglected,  that  it  will  force  upon  the  consideration  of 
thinking  men  of  all  parties  the  condition  of  our  poor— aye,  and 
the  contrast  which,  unfortunately,  exists  between  the  great 
luxury  and  wealth  which  some  enjoy,  and  the  misery  and 
poverty  which  prevails  among  large  portions  of  the  population. 
I  do  not  believe  that  any  Liberal  policy,  mine  or  any  other, 
will  ever  take  away  the  security  which  property  rightly  enjoys ; 
that  it  will  ever  destroy  the  certainty  that  industry  and  thrift 
will  meet  with  their  due  reward ;  but  I  do  think  that  something 
may  be  done  to  enlarge  the  obligation  and  responsibility  of  the 
whole  community  towards  its  poorer  and  less  fortunate  members. 
In  that  great  work,  if  I  am  permitted  to  take  any  part,  I  hope 
I  may  have,  I  am  confident  I  shall  have,  your  support  and  sym- 
y  ;  and  I  hope  that  this  great  constituency  of  Birmingham 
will  be  as  one  man  in  carrying  forward  the  Liberal  measures 
from  which  in  the  past  the  country  has  derived  such  signal 
advantage.  Gentlemen,  I  thank  you  very  much  for  the  cor- 
diality with  which  you  have  conveyed  to  me  your  invitation.  I 
hope  that  before  long  I  may  have  an  opportunity  of  addressing 
a  larger  meeting  in  the  constituency,  and  I  hope  that  the  con- 
which  has  existed  between  us,  first  in  the  Town  Council 
and  in  connection  with  local  affairs,  and  then  in  Parliament, 
may  not  be  broken  during  my  lifetime. 


C.    S.    PARNELL    ON    THE 
COERCION    BILL. 

House  of  Commons,  April  i8th,  1887. 

[In  the  former  part  of  this  speech  Mr  Parnell  denounced  as  a  forgery  the 
letter  purporting  to  have  been  written  by  him,  as  giving  countenance  to  the 
Phoenix  Park  Murders,  and  published  in  facsimile  in  The  Times  of  this  dale. 
See  Appendix.] 

Sir, — The  right  hon.  gentleman  (Mr  A.  J.  Balfour)  refrained  from 
answering  the  speech  which  I  delivered  on  the  first  reading  of 
this  Bill,  and  the  Government  refused  to  allow  the  adjournment 
of  the  debate,  in  order  that  some  other  member  of  the  Govern- 
ment should  have  an  opportunity  of  answering  it  the  next  day  ; 
and  now,  upon  the  second  reading  of  this  Bill,  he  goes  back  to 
the  speech,  and  he  attempts  an  answer  to  it,  at  a  time  of  the 
night  when  he  knows  perfectly  well  that  no  reply  can  be  made 
to  him ;  and,  with  characteristic  unfairness — an  unfairness 
which  I  suppose  we  may  expect  to  be  continued  in  the  future — 
he  has  refused  to  me  the  ten  or  twelve  minutes  that  I  should 
have  craved  to  refer  to  a  villainous  and  barefaced  forgery  which 
appeared  in  The  Times  of  this  morning,  obviously  for  the  pur- 
pose of  influencing  the  Division,  and  for  no  other  purpose. 
I  got  up  when  the  right  hon.  gentleman  the  member  for 
Midlothian  (Mr  Gladstone)  sat  down.  I  had  not  intended 
to  have  made  a  speech  at  all  upon  the  second  stage  of  this  Bill. 
I  should  not  have  said  more  than  a  very  few  words  in  refer- 
ence to  this  forgery ;  but  I  think  I  was  entitled  to  have  had 


2S4  Modern  Political  Orations. 

from  the  right  hon.  gentleman  an  opportunity  of  exposing  this 
deliberate  attempt  to  blacken  my  character  at  some  time  when 
there  would  have  been  some  chance  of  what  I  stated  reach- 
ing the  outside  world.  I  say  there  is  no  such  chance  now.  I 
cannot  suppose  the  right  hon.  gentleman,  in  refusing  me  the 
ten  minutes  which  I  crave,  had  not.  in  his  eye  the  design  of 
practically  preventing  my  denial  of  this  unblushing  calumny 
having  that  effect  upon  public  opinion  which  it  would  otherwise 
have  had  if  it  had  been  spoken  at  a  reasonable  hour  of  the 
night  It  appears  that,  in  addition  to  the  passage  of  this 
Coercion  Act,  the  dice  are  to  be  loaded — that  your  great  organs 
of  public  opinion  in  this  country  are  to  be  permitted  to  pay 
miserable  creatures  for  the  purpose  of  producing  these  calum- 
nies. Who  will  be  safe  in  such  circumstances  and  under  such 
conditions?  I  do  not  envy  the  right  hon.  gentleman  the  Chief 
Secretary  for  Ireland,  this  first  commencement  of  suppression 
of  defence — this  first  commencement  of  calumny  and  of  forgery 
which  has  been  made  by  his  supporters.  We  have  heard  of  the 
misdeeds  of  Mr  Ford,  the  editor  of  The  Irish  World,  but  Mr 
Ford  never  did  anything  half  so  bad  as  this.  [Mr  A.  J. 
Balfour. — I  do  not  wish  to  interrupt  the  hon.  member;  but 
as  he  makes  these  accusations,  I  should  like  to  explain  that  I 
intervened  between  the  hon.  gentleman  and  the  House  simply 
because  I  understood  that  it  had  been  arranged  that  I  should 
follow  the  right  hon.  member  for  Midlothian,  and  that  the  hon. 
member  would  follow  me.  No  hint  reached  me  that  he  was 
going  to  confine  himself  to  an  explanation  of,  or  deal  at  all 
with  the  accusation  in  The  Times  to  which  he  has  referred. 
NO  hint  of  that  kind  reached  me,  and  I  conceive  that  the  hon. 
member  mi.^ht  have  risen,  had  he  wished,  at  any  time  earlier  in 
the  evening.]  I  was  asked  officially,  at  an  early  hour  in  the 
evening,  whether  I  would  speak  after  the  right  hon.  member 
for  Midlothian,  and  I  replied  that  I  would,  and  that  I  only 
<ded  to  say  a  few  words  in  reference  to  this  calumny.  I 
think  I  ought  to  have  been  given  the  opportunity  which  I 
doiied. 


C.  S.  Pamell  on  the  Coercion  Bill.        285 

Now,  Sir,  when  I  first  heard  of  this  precious  concoction — I 
heard  of  it  before  I  saw  it,  because  I  do  not  take  in  or  even 
read  The  Times  usually — when  I  heard  that  a  letter  of  this 
description,  bearing  my  signature,  had  been  published  in  The 
Times,  I  supposed  that  some  autograph  of  mine  had  fallen  into 
the  hands  of  some  person  for  whom  it  had  not  been  intended, 
and  that  it  had  been  made  use  of  in  this  way.  I  supposed  that 
some  blank  sheet  containing  my  signature,  such  as  many 
members  who  are  asked  for  their  signature  frequently  send — I 
supposed  that  such  a  blank  sheet  had  fallen  into  hands  for 
which  it  had  not  been  intended,  and  that  it  had  been  misused 
in  this  fashion,  or  that  something  of  that  kind  had  happened. 
But  when  I  saw  what  purported  to  be  my  signature,  I  saw  plainly 
that  it  was  an  audacious  and  unblushing  fabrication.  Why, 
Sir,  many  members  of  this  House  have  seen  my  signature,  and 
if  they  will  compare  it  with  what  purports  to  be  my  signature  in 
The  Times  of  this  morning,  they  will  see  that  there  are  only 
two  letters  in  the  whole  name  which  bear  any  resemblance  to 
letters  in  my  own  signature  as  I  write  it.  I  cannot  understand 
how  the  conductors  of  a  responsible,  and  what  used  to  be  a 
respectable,  Journal,  could  have  been  so  hoodwinked,  so 
hoaxed,  so  bamboozled,  and  that  is  the  most  charitable  inter- 
pretation which  I  can  place  on  it,  as  to  publish  such  a  produc- 
tion as  that  as  my  signature.  My  writing — its  whole  character 
— is  entirely  different.  I  unfortunately  write  a  very  cramped 
hand  :  my  letters  huddle  into  each  other,  and  I  write  with  very 
great  difficulty  and  slowness.  It  is,  in  fact,  a  labour  and  a  toil 
to  me  to  write  anything  at  all.  But  the  signature  in  question  is 
written  by  a  ready  penman,  who  has  evidently  covered  as 
many  leagues  of  letter-paper  in  his  life  as  I  have  yards.  Of 
course,  this  is  not  the  time,  as  I  have  said,  to  enter  into  full 
details  and  minutiae  as  to  comparisons  of  handwriting  ;  but  if 
the  House  could  see  my  signature,  and  the  forged,  the 
fabricated  signature,  they  would  see  that,  except  as  regards 
two  letters,  the  whole  signature  bears  no  resemblance  to 
mine 


2S6  Modern  Political  Orations. 

The  same  remark  applies  to  the  letter.  The  letter  does  not 
purport  to  be  in  my  handwriting.     We  are  not  informed  who 

written  it.  It  is  not  alleged  even  that  it  was  written  by 
anybody  who  was  ever  associated  with  me.  The  name  of  this 
anonymous  letter-writer  is  not  mentioned.  I  do  not  know 
who  he  can  be.  The  writing  is  strange  to  me.  I  think  I 
should  insult  myself  if  I  said— I  think  however,  that  I  perhaps 

it  to  say  it,  in  order  that  my  denial  may  be  full  and  com- 
plete—that I  certainly  never  heard  of  the  letter.  I  never 
directed  such  a  letter  to  be  written.  I  never  saw  such  a  letter 
before  I  saw  it  in  The  limes  this  morning.  The  subject- 
matter  of  the  letter  is  preposterous  on  the  surface.  The 
phraseology  of  it  is  absurd — as  absurd  as  any  phraseology  that 
Id  be  attributed  to  me  could  possibly  be.  In  every  part  of 
it,  it  bears  absolute  and  irrefutable  evidence  of  want  of  genuine- 
ness and  want  of  authenticity.  Politics  are  come  to  a  pretty 
pass  in  this  country  when  a  leader  of  a  party  of  eighty-six 
members  has  to  stand  up,  at  ten  minutes  past  one,  in  the 
of  Commons,  in  order  to  defend  himself  from  an 
anonymous  fabrication,  such  as  that  which  is  contained  in  The 
Times  of  this  morning.  I  have  always  held,  with  regard  to  the 
late  Mr  Forster,  that  his  treatment  of  his  political   prisoners 

a  humane  treatment,  and  a  fair  treatment ;  and  I  think  for 
that  reason  alone,  if  for  no  other,  he  should  have  been  shielded 
from  such  an  attempt  as  was  made  on  his  life  by  the  Invincible 

tciation.  I  never  had  the  slightest  notion  in  the  world 
that  the  life  of  the  late  Mr  Forster  was  in  danger,  or  that  any 

piracy  was  on  foot  against  him,  or  any  other  official  in 
I  ind  or  elsewhere.  I  had  no  more  notion  than  an  unborn 
child  that  there  was  such  a  conspiracy  as  that  of  the  Invincibles 
.  and  no  one  was  more  surprised,  more  thunder- 
struck, and  more  astonished  than  I  was  when  that  bolt  from 
e  blue  fell  upon  us  in  the  Phoenix  Park  Murders.     I  know 

in  what  direction  to  look  for  this  calamity.  It  is  no 
tion  to  say  that  if  I  had  been  in  the  Park  that  day  I 
ladly  have  stood  between  Lord  Frederick  Cavendish 


C.  S.  Panic  11  on  the  Coercion  Bill.        287 

and  the  daggers  of  the  assassins,  and,  for  the  matter  of  that, 
between  their  daggers  and  Mr  Burke  too. 

Now,  Sir,  I  leave  this  subject.  I  have  suffered  more  than 
any  other  man  from  that  terrible  deed  in  the  Phoenix  Park, 
and  the  Irish  nation  has  suffered  more  than  any  other  nation 
through  it.  I  go  for  a  moment  to  the  noble  Marquis  the 
member  for  Rossendale  (the  Marquis  of  Hartington).  The 
noble  Marquis  made  a  rather  curious  complaint  of  me.  He 
said  that,  having  denied  point-blank  a  charge  that  had  been 
made  by  him  against  me  and  the  National  League  during  the 
General  Election  last  year,  he  was  rather  surprised  that  I  did 
not  again  refer  to  the  matter  in  the  House  of  Commons. 
Well,  I  was  rather  surprised  that  the  noble  Marquis  made  a 
charge  which  he  advanced  without  a  particle  of  truth.  He 
advanced  that  charge  again  to-night  without  a  particle  of  proof, 
and  I  deny  that  charge,  as  I  denied  it  before,  in  point-blank 
terms.  I  said  it  was  absolutely  untrue  to  say  that  the  Irish 
National  League  or  the  Parliamentary  Party  had  ever  had  any 
communication  whatever,  direct  or  indirect,  with  a  Fenian 
organisation  in  America  or  this  country.  I  further  said  that  I 
did  not  know  who  the  leaders  of  the  Fenian  organisation  in 
this  country  or  America  were.  I  say  that  still.  But  the  noble 
Marquis  says  he  knows  who  they  are,  at  least  he  tells  us  that 
Mr  Alexander  Sullivan — I  believe  that  was  the  name  mentioned 
— was  president  of  the  Clan-na-Gael,  or  Fenian  organisation. 
When  I  asked  him  how  he  obtained  his  knowledge,  he  said 
that  he  obtained  it  from  information  he  received  as  a  member 
of  Her  Majesty's  Government.  That  may  be.  But  I  am  not 
in  possession  of  the  information  with  regard  to  the  Clan-na- 
Gael  which  is  possessed  by  the  members  of  the  present,  or  of 
the  late  Government.  The  Clan-na-Gael  is  a  secret  organisa- 
tion ;  it  is  an  oath-bound  organisation  ;  it  gives  no  information 
with  regard  to  its  members  to  persons  who  are  not  members. 
I  presume  that  the  Government,  if  they  obtained  their  informa- 
tion with  regard  to  Alexander  Sullivan,  obtained  it  through 
their  secret  agents  in  America,  through  means  which  are  not 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

to  me  in  any  capacity  as  a  private  person  or  a  public 
itician.  It  is  no  answer  to  me  to  say  that  because  the  noble 
lis,  a  member  of  the  late  Government,  with  all  the  infor. 
mation  obtainable  by  the  wealth  and  resource  of  that  Govern- 
ment at  his  disposal,  believes  Alexander  Sullivan  was  a  member 
and  the  leader  of  the  Clan-na-Gael,  or  any  secret  organisation 
in  America.  I  have  never  had  any  dealings  with  him,  or  any- 
one else,  cither  in  Ireland  or  America,  in  respect  to  the  doings 
or  p]  ,  (f  any  secret  society  whatsoever.     All  my  doings 

and  doings  in  Irish  public  life  have  been  open 
and  above  board,  and  they  have  stood  the  test  of  the  searching 
investigation  of  the  three  years'  administration  of  the  Crimes' 
Act  by  Lord  Spencer,  who  has  left  it  on  record  that  neither 
any  of  my  colleagues  nor  myself  were  in  any  way  connected 
with  the  commission  of,  or  approving  of  the  commission  of, 
any  crime.  Here  are  Lord  Spencer's  words  spoken  at  New- 
castle on  the  21st  of  April  1886 — 

"  Foremost  among  the  many  objections  are  these  :  It  is  said  that  you 

I  to  hand  over  the    government  of   Ireland   to    men   who  have 

ged  —  nay,  some  I  have  heard  say  even  have  directed — outrage  and 

crim.  ihI.     That  is  a  very  grave  accusation.     Now,  I  have  been  in 

in  my  official  capacity  to  see  and  know  nearly  all  the  evidence 

that  has  been  given  in  Ireland  in  regard  to  the  murder  and  conspiracies 

to  murder  that  took  place  in  1881  and  1882,  and  I  can  say,  without  doubt 

:  .in,  that  I  have  neither  heard  nor  seen  any  evidence  of  complicity 

with  those  crimes  against  any  of  the  Irish  representatives.     It  is  right  that 

1       ould  clearly  and  distinctly  express  my  condemnation  of  many  of  the 

methods   by   which   they  carried   on   their   agitation.       They   often    used 

■■■  and  arguments  that  were  as  unjustifiable  as  they  were  unfounded. 

perhaps  from  financial  grounds,  were  silent  when  words 

:  hue  been  golden,  when  words  might  have  had  a  great  influence  on 

mntry.     They  might  even  have  employed  men  for  their 

legitimate  purposes  who  had  been  employed  in  illegal  acts  by  others  ; 

iy,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  I  believe  those  men  to  have  an 

ion  for,  and  a  real   interest  in,  the  welfare  of  their  country.     Their 

hown  an<l  acknowledged  in  the  House  of  Commons  by  all 

!  believe  that,  with  full  responsibility  upon  them,  they  will  show 

.'.  iy  of  obtaining  the  happiness  and  contentment  of 

foi   the  '  iovernment  to  maintain  law  and  order,  and  defend  the 

1  1  privileges  of  every  class  and  of  every  man  in  the  country." 

I  cordially  re  echo  those  words.     I  believe  that  that  expresses 
of  maintaining  law  and  order  in  any  country 


C.  S.  Parnell  on  the  Coercion  Bill.        289 

— that  you  must  obtain  from  the  majority  of  the  people  of  the 
country  sympathy  towards  the  law,  without  which  the  main- 
tenance of  the  law  is  impossible ;  that  you  must  show  the 
majority  of  the  community  that  the  law  is  not  only  made,  but  that 
it  is  also  administered  for  their  benefit,  and  fairly  and  justly 
to  all  classes.  In  this  way,  and  in  this  way  only,  can  you 
ever  obtain  respect  and  sympathy  for  law  and  order  in  Ireland, 
or  anywhere  else.  The  present  Bill  may  ]  ut  down  crime,  or  it 
may  increase  crime.  If  it  puts  it  down,  it  will  not  put  it  down 
by  instilling  in  the  minds  of  the  people  a  S)mpathy  for  law 
and  order.  Crime  will  die  out  only  as  the  effect  of  sullen 
submission.  You  will  be  no  farther,  after  you  have  been 
administering  your  Crimes  Act,  in  the  direction  of  the  real 
maintenance  of  law  and  order  than  you  were  at  the  beginning ; 
nay,  not  nearly  so  far.  You  are  crushing  by  this  icon  Coercion 
Bill  those  beneficial  symptoms  in  Ireland  which  a  Government 
of  wise  statesmen  and  wise  administrators  would  cherish  and 
foster.  You  are  preventing  that  budding  of  friendship  between 
the  two  countries  which  this  generation  would  never  have  wit- 
nessed in  Ireland  had  it  not  been  for  the  great  exertions  of  the 
right  hon.  member  for  Midlothian.  Who  could  have  predicted, 
who  would  have  ventured  to  predict,  that  the  heat,  the  passion, 
the  political  antipathies  engendered  by  the  working  of  the  Pro- 
tection Act  of  188 1  and  the  Crimes  Act  of  1882  would  have  all 
disappeared  in  three  or  four  short  months,  and  that  you  would 
have  had  the  English  and  the  Irish  people  regarding  each  other 
as  they  did  during  that  happy,  that  blessed  period,  and  all  this 
to  be  put  an  end  to  by  the  mad,  the  fatuous  conduct  of  the 
present  Government.  You  are  going  to  plunge  everything  back 
into  the  seething  cauldron  of  disaffection.  You  cannot  see 
what  the  results  of  all  this  may  be.  We  can  only  point  to  the 
experience  of  what  has  happened  in  past  times.  We  anticipate 
nothing  beneficial  from  this  Bill,  either  to  your  country  or  to 
ours ;  and  we  should  not  be  honest  men  if  we  did  not  warn 
you,  with  all  the  little  force  at  our  command,  of  the  terrible 
dangers  that  may  be  before  you. 

T 


,o  Modern  Political  Orations. 

I  trust  before  this  Bill  goes  into  Committee,  or  at  all  events, 
•efore  it  leaves  Committee,  the  great  English  people  will  make 
their  voices  heard,  and  impress  upon  their  representatives  that 
they  must  not  go  on  any  further  with  this  coercive  legislation. 
It"  this  House  and  its  majority  have  not  sense  enough  to  see 
!u's,  the  great  heart  of  this  country  will  see  it,  for  I  believe  it  is 
great  and  generous  heart,  that  can  sympathise  even  when  a 
n  is  concerned  in  reference  to  which  there  have  been  so 
many  political  antipathies.     I  am  convinced,  by  what  I  have 
seen  of  the  great  meetings  which   have  been  held  over  the 
length  and  breadth  of  England  and  Scotland,  that  the  heart  of 
vi  air  nation  has  been  reached — that  it  has  been  touched,  and 
though  our  opponents  may  be  in  a  majority  to-day,  that  the  real 
force  of  public  opinion  is  not  at  their  back.     A  Bill  which  is 
supported   by   men,   many  of  whom  are   looking   over   their 
shoulders  and  behind  them,  like  the  soldiers  of  an  army  which 
a  panic  is  beginning  to  reach,  to  see  which  is  their  readiest  mode 
of  retreat,  is  not  likely  to  get  through  the  difficult  times  before 
it  emerges  from  Committee.     The  result  will  be  modifications 
of  the  provisions  of  the  most  drastic  of  the  Coercion  Acts  ever 
introduced  against  Ireland  since  1833.     Do  not  talk  to  me  of 
comparing  the  suspension  of  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act  with  the 
nt  Dill.     We  have  suffered  from  both.     We  have  suffered 
from  some  of  the  provisions  of  the  present  Bill,  as  well  as  from 
1 1  ibeas  Corpus  Suspension  Act,  and  we  are  able  to  com- 
ill'-  one  with  the  other;  and  I  tell  you  that  the  provisions 
of  tin   I  [abeas  Corpus  Suspension  Act  empowered  you  to  arrest 
and    detain    in    prison   those   whom    you  suspected;    but   it 
nteed  them  humane  treatment,  which  did  much  to  soften 
rities  that  otherwise  would  have  been  bred  between  the 
ions  by  that  Act.     Your  prisoners  under  the  Habeas 
1  N't  were  not  starved  and  tortured  as  they  will  be  under 

ir  political  prisoners  were  not  put  upon  a  plank  bed, 
and  fed  <>n  sixteen  ounces  of  bread  and  water  per  day,  and 
d   to  pick  oakum,  and   perform  hard  labour,  as  they 
will  he  under  this  bill.     The  Bill  will  be  the  means  by  which 


C.  S.  Parnell  on  the  Coercion  Bill.        291 

you  will  be  enabled  to  subject  your  political  prisoners  to  treat- 
ment in  your  gaols  which  you  reserve  in  England  for  the  worst 
of  criminals,  and  it  is  idle  to  talk  about  comparison  between 
the  suspension  of  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act,  under  which  your 
prisoners  were  humanely  and  properly  treated  —  although 
imprisonment  is  hard  to  bear  under  the  best  circumstances ; 
but  in  the  position  in  which  this  Bill  will  place  them,  your 
political  prisoners  will  be  deliberately  starved  with  hunger  and 
clammed  with  cold  in  your  gaols.  I  trust  in  God,  Sir,  that  this 
nation  and  this  House  may  be  saved  from  the  degradation  and 
the  peril  that  the  mistake  of  passing  this  Bill  puts  them  in. 


THE  RIGHT  HON.  JOHN  MORLEY  ON 
HOME  RULE. 

Oxford,  February  29TH,  1888. 

February 22nd,  1888,  Lord  Randolph  Churchill,  by  the  invitation 

ord  Union  Society,  delivered  a  speech  on  Home  Rule,  opposing 

ihis   Motion  : — "  That  to  satisfy  the  just  aspirations  of  the  Irish  people,  it 

is   necessary    that    a    Statutory    Parliament    be    forthwith    established    in 

On  the  Wednesday  following  Mr  Morley  treated  the  subject 

q  the  other  side.] 

Sir,— This  is  not  my  maiden  speech  to  the  Oxford  Union, 

therefore  it  is  not  upon  that  ground  that  I  venture  to  claim 

your  indulgence.     I  was  warned  before  I  came  here — and  what 

I  have  heard  since  does  not  alter  the  weight  of  that  warning — 

that  I  must  be  prepared  to  face  a  decisively  hostile  majority. 

But,  in  spite  of  that,  I  confess  I  felt  in  coming  here  none  of 

those  misgivings  which  the  great  Master  of  Romance  made 

Louis  XI.  feel  when  lie  was  infatuated  enough  to  put  himself 

in  the  hands  of  Charles  the  Bold  of  Burgundy.     I  feel  perfectly 

confident  that   I   shall   receive   from   gentlemen   present   the 

courteous    and    kindly    attention    which    Englishmen    seldom 

•  vi  11  to  their  political  opponents^/-- It  is  quite  true  that 

moment  [tarty  passion  and  political  passion  have  reached 

1   pitch   of  bitterness,   and  in  some  quarters  I  would   almost 

feroi  tty,  which  has  not  been  equalled  in  English  history 

up  of  the  Conservative  party  on  the  repeal  of 

•  Corn  Laws  forty  two  years  ago.     In  spite  of  that,  I  venture 

mmend  the  remarks  which  I  shall  intrude  upon  you  to 


John  M or  ley  on  Home  Rule.  293 

your  favourable  and  indulgent  consideration.  I  am  accused 
very  often  of  choosing  to  address  what  arc  called  ignorant 
and  credulous  audiences.  It  cannot,  at  all  events,  be  said 
that,  in  venturing  to  accept  your  very  kind  invitation  to  come 
here  to-night,  I  have  sought  an  audience  which  is  ignorant,  or 
an  audience  which  is  credulous.  I  suspect  I  shall  find  a 
scepticism  in  regard  to  my  arguments  the  prevailing  mood  rather 
than  credulity.  An  old  Parliamentarian  was  once  asked 
whether  he  had  ever  known  a  speech  change  opinions,  and 
he  answered  :  "  Oh,  yes,  I  have  constantly  known  a  speech  to 
change  opinions,  but  I  have  never  known  a  speech  to  change 
votes."  I  do  not  aspire  to-night  to  change  votes ;  I  content 
myself  with  the  less  arduous  and  more  modest  task  of  trying 
to  change  your  opinions.  I  have  listened  with  enormous 
interest  and  sincere  pleasure  to  the  debate  which  has  proceeded 
since  I  entered  the  room.  It  has  been  animated  and  ex- 
hilarating, and  if  on  one  side  I  heard  prejudices  and  sophisms 
to  which  I  am  accustomed,  these  prejudices  and  sophisms  were 
expressed  with  very  great  ability,  and  with  evident  sincerity. 
The  arguments  on  the  other  side — the  side  which  I  am  here 
to  press  upon  your  attention — were  admirably  put,  and  I  hope 
that  they  may  have  caused  searching  of  hearts  among  some  of 
those  who  are  going  to-night  to  vote  against  the  Resolution 
before  the  House. 

I  am  following  to-night  a  very  distinguished  statesman  whom 
you  rightly  welcomed  last  week.  That  noble  Lord  has  shown 
himself  to  be  a  man  of  great  shrewdness,  some  insight,  and 
of  very  considerable  liberality  of  mind.  I  am  glad  that  you 
agree  with  me  in  that  account.  I  hope  you  will  go  further 
with  me  when  I  say  that,  considering  that  he  is  a  man  of 
shrewdness,  of  insight,  and  of  liberality  of  mind,  it  is  no  wonder 
that  he  has  left  Her  Majesty's  Government.  But  the  noble 
Lord,  in  his  speech,  as  far  as  practical  issues  were  concerned, 
dealt  mainly  in  the  prophetic.  Now  the  prophetic  is  a  line 
in  respect  to  Irish  affairs  in  which  the  noble  Lord  does  not 
at   all   excel.      I    remember    very   well    in    1884,    when    the 


Modem  Political  Orations. 

Franchise  Bill  was  before  the  House  of  Commons,  that  the 
advocated  and  defended  the  enlargement  of  the 
in  Ireland,  on  the  ground  that  the  new  voters  whom 
that  Bill  would  admit  to  political  power  would,  on  the  whole, 
rvative  force,  and  would  to  some  extent  neutralise 
the  Nationalist  forces  in  the  towns.     The  election   of  1885 
ed  what  foresight  there  was  in  that  particular  prophecy  of 
noble  Lord  ;  and  I  venture,  with  all  respect,  to  warn  you 
that  the  prophecies  which  he  made  to  you  last  week,  with 
to  the  probable  course  of  events  affecting  self-govern- 
ment, will,  within  the  next  two  or  three  years,  be  seen  by  you 
in  this  hall  to  have  been  as  futile,  as  random,  and  as  ill-founded 
as  the  prophecy  which  he  made  in  1885.     You  must  not  forget 
that  the  noble  Lord  himself  was  once  a  Home  Ruler.     [A  cry 
No,  no  ! "      Some  gentleman  says  "  No,"  but  I  assure  him 
he  is  mistaken.     Lord  Randolph  Churchill  said  in  the  House 
of  Commons  that  he   had   been  himself  in   Mr   Butt's  days 
ied  to  look  favourably  upon  Home  Rule  on   Mr  Butt's 
5.     It  cannot  be  denied  that  Lord  Randolph  Churchill  has 
been  himself  in  his  day  a  Home  Ruler,  and  in  his  day  he  may 
lie  a  Home  Ruler  again. 

I   will  not  detain  you  long  in  dealing  with  Lord  Randolph 
I        :■  lull's   positions,   but   there  are  one    or  two   of  them   so 
ukahle  that  I  cannot  allow  them,  considering  the  noble 
!       I's  importance  in  the  public  eye,  to  pass  without  a  word  of 
irk.     The  noble  Lord  defined  the  Irish   question,  and    I 
1  fault  to  find  with  that  definition.     He  said  that  the 
Irish  question  arose  from  this  fact,  that  we  cannot  obtain  from 
ind,  first  of  all,  the  same  reverence  for  the  law;  secondly, 
same  material  prosperity  ;  and  thirdly,  the  same  content- 
id  tranquillity  that  we  obtain  in  England  and  Scotland. 
I  think  that  is  a  perfectly  fair  statement  of  the  question.     But 
then,  it  ur  even  to  those  who  are  going  to  vote 

nsl  this  Resolution  tonight,  that  a  statesman  who  admitted 
ned   nothing  better  than  a  result  so  unsatis- 
litable,  and  so  deplorable,  would  say:  "Since 


John  M or  ley  on  Home  Rule.  295 

the  result  has  been  such,  we  must  change  the  system  which 
has  produced  that  result "  ?  I  think  that  is  a  fair  way  of 
answering  the  question  as  the  noble  Lord  defines  it.  Did  he  so 
answer  it  ?  On  the  contrary,  what  he  said  was:  "Since  the 
result  has  been  so  discreditable,  so  deplorable,  and  so  un- 
satisfactory, therefore  I  urge  you,  of  the  Oxford  Union,  to  vote 
in  favour  practically  of  maintaining  every  jot  and  tittle  of  that 
system  exactly  as  it  now  stands."  I  do  not  know  how  the 
school  of  logic  goes  in  Oxford  since  my  day ;  but  I  think  if 
theoretic  logic  had  been  dealt  with  on  the  same  principle  as 
the  noble  Lord  deals  with  questions  of  practical  logic,  he  would 
have  come  away  from  the  schools  with  no  testamur. 

And  now  I  come  to  a  more  important  part  of  the  noble 
Lord's  speech.  What  is  the  good  of  the  policy  which  he  pressed 
upon  your  attention  ?  What  is  the  bright  and  cheerful  prospect 
that  he  holds  out  to  you  as  the  result  of  following  that  policy  ? 
It  is  so  extraordinary  and  so  remarkable  from  a  man  of  the 
n  ble  Lord's  shrewdness,  that  I  really  will  beg  your  very  close 
scrutiny  of  the  position  which  he  then  took  up,  and  of  the  very 
astonishing  arguments  to  which  he  resorted.  The  noble  Lord 
said  that  the  Irish  party  is  deeply  divided  into  two  sharply- 
opposed  sections — one  of  them  is  the  section  which  is  content 
with  Parliamentary,  Constitutional,  and  peaceful  methods ; 
and  the  other  is  the  party  of  violence  and  force.  That  is 
perfectly  true.  There  have  always  been  in  Irish  history  these 
two  opposed  forces.  It  is  a  very  old  story ;  and  one  part  of 
the  story  that  I  have  always  heard  is  that  in  the  old  days  when 
the  quarrel  between  the  moral  force  party  and  the  physical 
force  party  waxed  very  hot,  it  generally  ended  in  the  moral 
force  party  kicking  the  ph>  sical  force  party  downstairs.  The 
noble  Lord  reversed  this.  He  said,  depend  upon  it,  as  Home 
Rule  receded  in  the  distance,  those  who  do  not  believe  in  the 
efficacy  of  Parliamentary  methods  would  assert  their  superiority 
over  those  who  do  believe  in  Parliamentary  methods.  I  will 
ask  the  House  to  put  that  proposition  into  rather  plainer 
English.     What  it  means  is,  that  when  Home  Rule   is  put 


>6  Modern  Political  Orations. 

the  shelf,  the  Fenian  Movement — which  the  noble  Lord 
jiv  remarked  could  scarcely  be  said  to  exist  at  the  present 
moment  —would  rise  in  undisputed  triumph,  and  the  Consti- 
tutional, peaceful,  and  Parliamentary  movement  would  receive 
its  quietus.     And  that  is  the  noble  Lord's  argument  in  this 
House  for  opposing  the  Resolution  now  before  it !     I  cannot 
imagine  that  the  golden  prospect  which  the  noble  Lord  places 
re  you  is  one  that  is  really  calculated  to  bring  comfort  or 
relief  to  British  statesmen.     I  agree  with  him  absolutely  in  his 
prediction.     I  have  often  said  that  if  you  do  shelf  Home  Rule, 
if  you  once  show  the  majority  of  the  population  of  Ireland  that 
they  have  nothing  to  hope  for  from  the  equity  and  common 
>e  of  Great  Britain,  then  I  firmly  believe  that  you  will  have 
a  revival  of  the  old  party  of  violence,  of  conspiracy,  of  sedition, 
and  of  treason.     But  the  prospect  that  he  regards  with  satis- 
faction and  complacency — the  prospect  of  the  revival  of  the 
violent  party  and  the  depression  of  the  peaceful  party — that 
spect  fills  me,  and  I  hope  fills   all   well-considering   men 
here,  whether  they  be  Unionists  or  Home  Rulers,  with    re- 
pugnance and  horror.     We  shall  regard  the  revival  of  such  a 
state  of  things  as  most  dishonouring  to  England,  and  as  merci- 
less t    Ireland. 

But  I  would  ask,  Gentlemen,  to  press  the  noble  Lord's  argu- 
ment home,  to  test  it  and  to  probe  it  to  the  bottom  from  his 
<>w    speech.     You  are  to  force  Home  Rule  back,  in  order  to 
■re  those  halcyon  days  of  which  the  noble  Lord  himself  gave 
you  an  account    when,  as  he  said,  and  I  daresay  correctly  said, 
hall  the    population  of  Ireland  were  either  sworn  Fenians  or 
in    close    sympathy   with   Fenianism.      That    is    extreme 
Bui  what  is  still   more  extraordinary  is  the  purpose 
and    object    with    which   you   are  to    effect   this   most  curious 
re      What  was  the  purpose  and  the  object  of  shelving 
Home   Rule  with  the    prospect  of  a  revival    of   Fenianism? 
the  noble  Lord's   train  of  thought.     You  are  to  raise 
sin  from  the  dead,  you  are  to  stamp  out  the  Constitutional 
new  life   to  the  men  of  violence  and  con- 
you  are  to  fan  into  a  glow  all  the  sullen  elements  of 


John  M or  ley  on  Home  Rule.  297 

insurgency  in  Ireland,  in  order,  forsooth,  that  the  Empire  should 
be  the  better  able  to  face  all  these  troubles  that  are  coming 
upon  Europe,  as  the  noble  Lord  thinks,  and  may  truly 
think— to  face  all  these  troubles  with  concentrated  strength 
and  undivided  resources  !  Surely  of  all  extraordinary 
short  cuts  to  concentrated  strength  and  undivided  resources, 
none  can  be  more  extraordinary  than  to  take  care  to  keep  a 
disaffected  province  at  your  very  gates.  The  moral  charm  of 
such  a  policy  as  that  is  only  equalled  by  its  practical  common 
sense.  Why,  the  other  day,  in  the  wilds  of  Donegal,  there  was 
occasion — or  the  Government  thought  there  was  occasion — to 
arrest  a  certain  priest,  and  to  carry  this  priest  in  the  midst  of 
his  flock  to  the  Court-house,  where  he  was  about  to  be  tried,  it 
required  a  force  of  horse,  foot,  and  artillery  of  something  like 
500  or  600  of  Her  Majesty's  troops.  Now  it  does  not  need  a 
very  elaborate  arithmetical  calculation  to  satisfy  ourselves  if  it 
takes  600  troops  to  safely  look  after  one  insignificant  parish 
priest  in  the  wilds  of  Donegal  for  trial,  how  many  troops  will 
it  take  to  hold  Ireland  when  half  the  population  are  sworn 
Eenians,  or  else  in  close  sympathy  with  Fenianism. 

So  much  for  the  noble  Lord's  argument,  because  that  was 
the  real  argument  of  his  speech.  No,  Sir,  gentlemen  here 
may  depend  upon  it  that,  if  the  time  ever  comes,  as  it  has  come 
before,  when  this  great  and  mighty  realm  shall  be  called  once 
more  by  destiny  or  her  duty  to  face  a  world  in  arms  in  some 
high  cause  and  policy  of  State,  she  will  only  have  her  strength 
concentrated  and  her  resources  undivided  on  the  condition 
that  her  statesmen  and  her  people  have  plucked  up  the  root  of 
strife  in  Ireland,  and  turned  the  domestic  enemy  on  our  flank 
into  our  friend  and  our  ally.  But  I  think  we  may  all  agree  to 
recognise  the  hollowness  of  the  cause,  when  so  able  a  man  as 
the  noble  Lord,  appealing  to  you  in  the  name  of  the  Empire 
and  the  strength  of  the  Empire,  argues  for  the  perpetuation  of 
a  state  of  things  which  morally,  and  politically,  and  materially 
weakens,  disables,  and  cripples  the  forces  of  the  Empire.  So 
much  for  the  goal  of  the  policy  which  the  noble  Lord  pressed 
upon  you.    It  is  the  same  goal  which  Ministers — the  same  Lord 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

longer  a  Minister— it  is  the  same  goal  which  Ministers 
are  constantly  alleging  in  the  House  of  Commons  that  they 
ice  before    themselves,  and    most   paradoxical   and   extra- 
ordinary things  they  say  in  defence  of  the  proposition  that  they 
are  reaching  the  goal.     What  is  the  goal  ?     The  goal  is  to  give 
to  Ireland  the  same  reverence  for  the  laws,  the  same  material 
perity,  the  same  contentment  and  tranquillity,  that  we  have 
Ingland  and  Scotland.      Yes;    but  there  are  some  very 
astonishing  congratulations  to  be  heard  in  the  Ministerial  camp 
as  to  the  speed  with  which  and  as  to  the  manner  in  which 
they  are  nearing  that  goal.    For  instance,  the  Attorney-General 
said  the  other  day  that  they  must  be  considered  to  be  sur- 
mting  the  difficulties  that  concerned  English  government 
in  Ireland.     Well,  but  why?     The  Attorney-General  said  that 
the   Government   were    surmounting    difficulties    in    Ireland, 
i use  meetings  and  movements  which  had  once  been  open 
now  secret.     I  am   sure  that  many  of  you,  though  you 
have  other  things  to  do  than  to  follow  very  closely  the  history 
of  Ireland,  and  of  the  good  and  bad  movements  in  Ireland, 
must  be  well  aware  that  the  great  bane  of  Ireland  and  of  Scot- 
land when  they  cross  the  seas — whether  they  go  to  the  United 
States  or  the  English  Colonies — has  been  secret  association. 
The  great  triumph,  I  will  say,  of  the  League  and  of  the  Nati  nal 
Movement  since  the  year  1880,  has  been  that  those  associations 
which  formerly  were  secret,  and  therefore  dangerous,  are  now 
1,  and  will  be  open  as  long  as  this  most  reckless  Govern- 
•  will  allow  them  to  be.    Ask  yourselves — I  appeal  to  your 
Lsk    yourselves  whether,  if  treason  is  taught,  and  if 
murder  is  hatched,  is  treason  likely  to  be  taught,  is  murder 
likely  to  be  hatched,  in  open  meetings?     No,  it  is  impossible. 
possible?     I  am  afraid  that  what  is  certain  is,  that 
if   you  repress  public  combination— if  you   go  through  that 
and  ridiculous  process  which  is  called  driving  discontent 
ith  the  surface— if  you  do  that,  you  are  taking  the  surest 
that  can  be  taken  to  have  treason  taught  and  murder 
I 


John  M or  ley  on  Home  Rule.  299 

Now,  I  ask  gentlemen  here  before  they  vote  to-night — or,  at 
all  events,  to  turn  it  over  in  their  minds  after  they  have  voted 
whether  the  goal  is  being  reached  by  the  present  policy,  a 
policy  which  the  rejection  of  this  Resolution  encourages  and 
endorses.  I  am  not  talking  away  from  the  Resolution,  because 
I  am  trying  to  call  the  attention  of  gentlemen  to  the  alternative 
of  the  policy  set  out  in  the  Resolution  of  the  hon.  mover.  I 
hope,  therefore,  you  will  agree  that  I  am  keeping  close  to  the 
point.  The  point  is  the  alternative  of  the  policy  of  Home 
Rule.  We  have  had  since  the  Session  began  a  series  of  debates 
in  the  House  of  Commons  upon  the  administration  of  the 
Coercion  Act.  Of  course  I  am  not  an  impartial  witness,  but 
I  think  that  the  subtle  something  which  is  called  the  im- 
pression of  a  great  assembly,  the  impression  of  the  House  of 
Commons,  is  that  the  Government  have  not  shown  that  they 
have  attained  any  of  the  ends  which  they  proposed  to  them- 
selves when  they  passed  this  piece  of  legislation.  All  the  tests 
that  can  be  applied  to  the  success  of  the  operation  of  that  Act 
appear  to  me  to  show  that  it  has  achieved  none  of  the  ends 
that  were  proposed.  Have  they  put  down  the  League  ?  It  is 
perfectly  certain  that  the  League  is  as  strong  as  ever.  I  know 
that  an  attempt  is  made  to  make  out  the  contrary  case,  but 
from  any  test  that  you  can  apply  to  the  strength  of  the  League, 
whether  it  be  to  the  number  of  branches,  to  the  copiousness  of 
subscriptions,  or  to  the  numbers  at  the  meetings— according  to 
any  of  these  tests,  so  far  as  I  can  make  out,  the  League  is 
not  in  the  least  degree  weakened.  Have  they  put  down  the 
Plan  of  Campaign  ?  It  is  very  clear  that  the  Plan  of  Campaign 
has  not  been  put  down.  It  is  true,  to  come  to  a  third  point, 
that  there  is  a  great  decline  in  boycotting.  That  is  quite  true, 
but  the  point  that  you  have  got  to  make  good  is  that  the 
decline  in  boycotting  is  due  to  the  Government  policy.  There 
are  more  explanations  than  one  for  the  decline  of  boycotting. 
If  you  want  my  explanation,  since  you  have  been  so  very  kind 
as  to  ask  me  to  come  here,  and  are  so  good  as  to  listen  to  me 
so  attentively,  my  explanation  is  that  the  decline  of  boycotting 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

;,  first  of  all,  to  the  fact  that  a  great  many  of  the  boycotted 

have  wisely,  or  unwisely,    yielded   to  and  joined  the 

and,  secondly,  what  is  a  far  more  important  considera- 

ng  has  declined  because  a  great  many  landlords 

under  pressure,  or  from  other  motives,  made  those  reduc- 

:ions  which  equity  required  and  which  the  peace  of  the  country 

demanded. 

Now,  I  think  it  is  very  important  that  you  should  try  and 
ise  for  yourselves  what  the  policy  of  Coercion  is  in  actual 
ractice.  I  am  not  going  to  detain  this  House  very  long  by 
reading  extracts.  One  of  the  most  respected  lawyers  in  the 
North  of  England  and  a  very  old  friend  of  mine,  who  is  a 
very  experienced  man,  was  in  the  Court  at  Galway  on  the  13th 
of  this  month  during  a  trial  of  twelve  men  for  rioting.  Now, 
this  is  what  he  says — 

"There  was  a  greal   crowd  to  welcome  Mr  Blunt  on   the  evening  of 

Mr   Blunt  was  brought    to   the   giol   at   Galway  the 

orderlj   on  the  whole,  but  they  cheered  for  Mr  Blunt,  and 

they  pushed  through   the  police   at  the   station   in   their   anxiety  to  see 

Mr  Blunt." 

Was  there  any  harm  in  that  ?     My  friend  goes  on  to  say— 

"  Orders  were  given  to  clear  the  station." 

I  will  ask  you  to  mark  that  I  am  not  criticising  what  happened. 
1  want  to  get  you  into  Court.     My  friend  goes  on  to  say— 

"The   station  was  cleared  in  half  a  minute,  the   police   batoning   the 

I  knocking  them  down.     What  attempt  was  made  on    February 

4  any  offence  home  to  the  twelve  accused  persons  ?     All  that 

1  !»•  m  inst  them  was  that  they  hail  waited  for  and  had  cheered 

Mr  Blun 

And  1  think  they  had  as  much  right  to  do  so  as  if  they  had 
1  in  Oxford  Station.     To  continue — 

was   not    dismissed,   it    was  adjourned  and   resumed   on 

rhe  Crown  then  called  four  fresh  policemen, 

no  notice  had  been  given  to  the  accused,  and  these  four 

•men  told  a   new  tale.     The  crowd,   which,  according  to  the 

fore,  wa:  described  as  orderly,  was  now  de  cribed  as 

It  was  now  represented  that  the  police  had  been  interfered 


John  M  or  ley  on  Home  Rule.  301 

with  and  were  in  actual  peril.  There  was  stone-throwing,  but  it  was 
outside  the  station,  and  no  attempt  was  made  to  connect  the  accused  with 
anything  that  took  place  outside  the  station,  or  anythirg  worse  than 
shouting  or  cheering.  The  result  was  that  e'even  or  twelve  of  the 
accused  men  were  sentenced  to  a  fortnight's  or  a  month's  imprisonment 
with  hard  labour ;  and  one  of  them  calling  out  that  he  would  do  the  same 
again,  the  magistiate,  with  what  I  must  call  a  truly  contemptible  vindic- 
tiveness,  said,  '  You  shall  have  another  week's  imprisonment  for  saying 
that.'  The  upshot  of  the  whole  case  was  that  these  men — two  of  them, 
mind  you,  Town  Commissioners,  respected  public  men  in  the  confidence 
of  their  fe'.low-citizens— were  punished,  not  for  concerting  a  riotous 
meeting,  not  for  throwing  stores,  not  for  attacking  the  police,  not  for 
doing  anything  to  alarm  reasonable  and  courageous  persons,  but  simply 
for  waving  their  hats  and  caps  in  honour  of  Mr  Blunt." 

Now,  I  say  that  is,  unfortunately,  a  typical  case.  [Cries  of 
"No."]  Yes,  it  is  a  typical  case.  If  gentlemen  who  doubt 
that  will  take  the  trouble,  as  I  have  done,  to  read  the  reports 
from  day  to  day  of  what  goes  on  in  these  Courts,  if  they  will 
take  the  trouble  to  hear  evidence  that  Englishmen,  not  partisan 
Irishmen,  have  seen  administered  in  these  Courts,  they  will 
agree  that  this  is  a  typical  case,  that  men  are  treated  violently, 
that  they  are  then  summoned  for  an  offence  which  is  not 
properly  proved— [A  cry  of11  No."]— what  I  say  I  hope  to  show 
in  a  moment— and  for  acts  which  are  not  in  themselves  an 
offence  or  a  crime. 

Somebody  protested  when  I  used  the  word  "prove."  I  will 
ask  him,  and  I  will  ask  the  House,  to  listen  to  a  little  extract 
which  I  am  going  to  read  to  show  the  kind  of  evidence  which 
in  these  Courts  is  thought  good  enough.  It  is  the  case  of  a 
certain  Irish  member,  Mr  Sheehy,  who  was  convicted,  and  this 
is  a  very  short  passage  from  the  cross-examination  of  the 
shorthand  writer.  Mr  Sheehy  was  brought  up  for  words 
spoken  ;  it  was  vitally  important  to  know  what  were  the  words 
spoken,  for  which  he  was  about  to  have  inflicted  upon  him  a 
very  severe  punishment.  This  is,  in  a  very  few  words,  a 
passage  fiom  the  cross-examination  of  the  Government  re- 
porter— 

"  Did  you  ever  study  shorthand  ?  " 

"  I  did  not.  I  might  look  over  the  book,  but  that  is  all.  As  far  as  I 
know,  shorthand  is  not  studied  by  any  man  in  the  barracks.    There  was  no 


Modern  Political  Orations. 

to  my  knowledge,  in  Trench  Park  on  the  day  of  the  meeting 

id.     The  meeting  lasted  from  three  o'clock  till  a  quarter 

Sneehy  was  speaking  the  greater  part  of  the  time.     When 

ntence  or  a  sentence  and  a  half,  I  took  down  all  I 

iber  at  the  lime.     I  took  no  note  of  what  he  would  be  sayii  g 

taking  down  the  two  sentences  which  I  remembered  at  the 

tin,  ;  Mr  Sheehy  a  slow  speaker." 

'•  While  you  would  be  writing  a  sentence,  how  many  sentences  would  he 
?" 
d  the  constable  or  reporter,  "he  might  get  two  or  three." 
"Then  when  you  would  complete  your  sentence,  would  you  skim  over 
what  he  had  said  in  the  meantime  and  then  catch  him  up  again  ?" 

•■  V  tld  try  and  remember  what  he  would  say  in  the  meantime." 

"When  you  say  that  you  would  try  and  remember,  what  do  you 
mean  ?" 

•'  I  mean  that  when  I  heard  a  sentence  or  two  I  would  take  that  down, 
and  pay  no  attention  to  what  he  would  say  in  the  meantime." 

How  many  gentlemen  here  must  have  been  in  English  Courts, 
and  heard  the  careful,  austere,  and  impressive  standards  which 
the  Judges  of  those  Courts  apply  to  evidence  ?  I  say,  when  you 
hear  such  evidence  as  that,  do  you  not  think  you  are  listening 
to  the  proceedings  of  a  Court  in  a  Comic  Opera  ?  Pray  re- 
mark, that  in  a  charge  of  this  kind  a  phrase  or  a  qualification 
of  a  phrase  may  be  of  vital  importance.  It  may  make  all  the 
difference  in  the  construction  and  the  interpretation  that  the 
Court  would  put  upon  a  word  spoken  ;  and  yet  you  see  that 
the  qualifying  phrases  and  words  might  have  been  dropped  out 
while  the  reporter  was  taking  down  the  other  sentences.  It  is 
a  sheer  caricature  of  evidence. 

I  must   inflict  one   more  story  upon  you — it  is  the  last — 

because  you  must  know  it  is  no  use  using  vague  general  words 

about  Coercion.     Realize  what  Coercion  means.     I  ought  to 

i hat    those    words    I    have   just    read   and   that   case  was 

mentioned  in  the  House  of  Commons.      Those  words  were 

I  out  in  the  House  of  Commons.    No  answer  was  attempted 

to  them  by  the  Government.     I  am  not  going  to  use  any  case 

which  has  not  been  challenged  in  the  House  of  Commons. 

ie  is  a  case,  of  a  certain  Patrick  Corcoran.     Patrick 

1  n  is  the   foreman   printer  of   The  Cork  Examiner.      He 

purely  a  mechanic.      He  was  tried,  his  name  being 

on  the  imprint  of  the  newspaper,  for  publishing  proceedings  of 


John  Morley  on  Home  Rule.  303 

the  suppressed  branches  of  the  National  League.  On  the 
hearing  of  the  first  summons  the  joint-editor  and  manager 
came  forward  and  said  he  alone  was  responsible  for  everything 
that  appeared  in  the  paper,  and  that  Corcoran  was  a  mere 
mechanic,  and  had  no  power  or  control  in  any  sense  or  degree 
over  the  matter  published.  Well,  of  course,  as  he  had  no  con- 
trol over  the  matter  published,  he  could  not  have  what  the 
lawyers  call  that  guilty  mind  which  was  necessary,  according  to 
the  Act,  for  the  commission  of  the  offence ;  because  the  Act 
requires  that  this  publication  should  be  uttered  with  a  view  of 
promoting  the  objects  of  the  incriminated  association.  Well, 
Corcoran,  this  mechanic,  was  sent  to  prison  for  a  month. 
[Cries  of  "  Shame  !  "J  Yes,  and  mark  the  point.  Most  of  you 
know  that  if  a  sentence  is  for  more  than  a  month,  then  there  is 
a  right  of  appeal.  Corcoran's  counsel  implored  the  Bench  to 
add  a  week  to  the  sentence  so  that  there  might  be  this  right  of 
appeal,  or  else  to  state  a  case  for  a  Superior  Court,  which 
would  have  been  the  same  thing.  The  Magistrate  refused  even 
that.  That  is  rather  sharp ;  but  that  was  not  all.  They  took 
up  another  charge,  in  substance  the  same,  for  publishing 
reports  of  meetings  number  two,  and  on  the  footing  of  the 
second  summons  they  gave  Corcoran  another  month's  imprison- 
ment. I  hope  gentlemen  see  the  point — that  by  this  method 
of  accumulated  penalties  they  managed  to  give  him  a  two 
months'  sentence,  and  yet  to  deprive  him  of  the  right  to  appeal 
which  he  would  have  had  from  a  single  two  months'  sentence. 

These  are  illustrations  which  I  commend  to  the  attention  of 
gentlemen  who  oppose  this  Resolution,  because  they  are 
inevitable  features  in  the  system  which  is  the  alternative  to  the 
system  advocated  in  the  Resolution.  [Cries  of  "  No,  no  ! "] 
Well,  I  will  have  one  word  to  say  about  that  in  one  moment. 
But  I  ask  you,  in  the  meantime  :  Can  you  wonder  that  under 
such  circumstances  as  those  of  which  I  have  given  you  three 
actual  illustrations — that  Irishmen  do  not  respect  the  law  and 
do  not  revere  the  tribunals  where  that  law  is  administered  ? 
Imagine  how  the  existence  of  such  a  state  of  things  would 


Modem  Political  Orations. 

affect  you  who  are  Englishmen.  Would  you  endure  to  be 
und<  tional  repressive  legislation  of  this  kind  so  adminis- 

tered ?  I  do  not  believe  you  would.  Englishmen  never  have 
acquiesced  in  legislation  and  administration  of  that  kind;  they 
have  fought  against  it  from  age  to  age,   and    Irishmen  will 

jhtly  fight  against  it  from  age  to  age. 

I  listened  with  especial  interest,  and,  if  I  may  say  so,  with 
ition  to  the  speech  of  the  gentleman  who  preceded  me, 
in  whom  I  am  glad  to  recognise  the  germs  of  hereditary  gifts ; 
and,  if  it  is  not  impertinent  in  me  to  say  so,  I  hope  he  will 
continue  to  cultivate  those  remarkable  gifts;  and — forgive  me 
for  saying  so — I  hope  he  may  one  day  use  them  in  a  better 
cause.  The  hon.  gentlemen  struck  the  keynote.  I  accept 
that  note.  He  said,  "Think  of  the  sons  and  daughters  of 
Ireland."  Think  of  the  sons  and  daughters  of  Ireland;  it  is 
lor  their  sake  as  much  as  for  our  own,  not  more,  but  as  much — 
it  is  for  the  sake  of  the  sons  and  daughters  of  Ireland  that  I  am 
and  have  been  an  advocate  of  giving  Ireland  responsibility  and 
self-government.  Can  you  wonder?  Put  yourselves  in  the 
place  of  the  sons  and  daughters  of  Ireland.  These  trans- 
actions, of  which  I  have  given  you  a  very  inadequate  specimen, 
fill  their  minds.  They  hear  scarcely  anything  else  in  the 
lus  of  their  leaders  and  in  the  talk  of  those  in  whom 
they  have  confidence.  They  talk  of  these  things  when  they 
meet  at  fairs,  when  they  meet  at  chapel,  when  they  meet  at 
athletic  sports.  And  they  read  scarcely  anything  else  in  the 
newspapers.  And  if  they  cannot  read,  then  their  children  read 
these  proceedings  out  to  them.  Now  think  of  a  generation 
growing  up  in  this  demoralising  and  poisoned  atmosphere  of 
defiance  and  suspicion  and  resentment,  and  think  whether  you 
are  doing  your  duty;  think  how  you  are  preparing  for  the 
:h  of  a  generation  in  Ireland  in  whom  the  spirit  of 
citizenship  shall  he  wholesome  and  shall  be  strong.  It  is  of 
■  ail  to  tell  me  that  a  lawyer  in  his  study  has  this  or  that 
i  lion  to  this  or  that  section.  What  I  see  in  Ireland  is  a 
ilation  in  whom  you  are  doing  your  best  to  breed  want  of 


John  M or  ley  on  Home  Rule.  305 

reverence  for  the  law,  distrust  of  the  tribunals,  and  resentment 
against  the  British  rule  which  fastens  that  yoke  upon  their 
necks. 

When  I  said  that  the  Government  were  pursuing  a  policy  of 
pure  repression,  somebody  objected.  I  should  like  him  to  be 
kind  enough  to  tell  me  what  other  dish  there  is  on  the  Minis- 
terial table  for  Ireland,  except  repression.  Let  us  go  to  the  law 
and  the  testimony.  We  used  to  be  told — I  see  old  and  re- 
spected friends  of  mine  around  me  who  are  Liberal  Unionists, 
and  their  party  used  to  say  that  they  would  not  assent  to  Home 
Rule,  but  that  they  would  assent  to  an  extension  of  local  govern- 
ment in  Ireland.  [A  cheer.']  I  am  glad  to  hear  that  cheer,  but 
it  is  a  very  forlorn  cry.  I  will  ask  you  for  a  single  instant  to 
listen  to  the  history  of  the  promise  of  the  extension  of  local 
government  in  Ireland.  In  1842,  forty-six  long  years  ago,  a 
Commission  reported  in  favour  of  amending  the  system  of  county 
government  in  Ireland.  A  Bill  was  brought  in  to  carry  out 
that  recommendation  in  1849.  It  was  rejected.  It  was 
brought  in  in  1853,  and  it  was  rejected  ;  again  in  1856  it  was  re- 
jected ;  again  another  in  1857,  which  also  was  rejected.  Then 
there  was  a  pause  in  the  process  of  rejection  until  1868,  when 
a  Parliament  and  the  Government  of  the  day  resorted  to  the 
soothing  and  comforting  plan  of  appointing  a  Select  Committee. 
That,  just  like  the  previous  Commission,  issued  a  copious  and 
an  admirable  report,  but  nothing  more  was  done.  In  1875  a 
Bill  was  brought  in  for  County  Reform  in  Ireland,  and  in  1879 
another  Bill  was  brought  in  which  did  not  touch  the  evils  that 
called  for  remedy.  In  1881,  in  the  time  of  the  Gladstone 
Administration,  and  at  a  time  when  Ireland,  remember,  was  in 
a  thousand  times  worse  condition  than  the  most  sinister 
narrator  can  say  she  is  now,  the  Queen  in  her  Speech  was 
made  to  say  that  a  Bill  for  the  extension  of  local  government 
of  Ireland  would  be  brought  in  ;  nothing  was  done.  In  1886 
the  distinguished  man  whom  you  had  here  last  week  himself 
said — I  heard  him  say  it  one  afternoon — he  made  this  promise 
in  the  name  of  the  Government  of  which  he  was  a  leading  and 

U 


:o6  Modern  Political  Orations. 

an  important  member— that  it  was  the  firm  intention  of  the 
eminent  to  bring  in  a  measure  with  a  view  of  placing  all 
control  of  local  government  in  Ireland  in  the  hands  of  the 
Irish  people.  [Cheers.]  Some  of  you  cry,  "  Hear,  hear,"  but 
that  is  all  gone.  Listen  to  what  Lord  Harrington,  the  Master 
of  the  Government,  has  since  said.  The  noble  Lord  has  said 
that  no  scheme  for  the  extension  of  local  government  in  Ire- 
land can  be  entertained  until  there  has  been  a  definite  repudia- 
tion of  nationality  by  the  Irish  people.  I  do  not  want  to  press 
that  too  far,  but  at  all  events  you  will  agree  with  me  that  it 
postpones  the  extension  of  local  government  in  Ireland  to  a 
tolerably  remote  day.  Do  not  let  Liberal  Unionists  deceive 
themselves  by  the  belief  that  there  is  going  to  be  a  moderate 
extension  of  local  government  for  Ireland.  Do  not  let  them 
retain  any  such  illusion.  Proposals  for  local  government  will 
follow  these  Royal  Commissions,  Committees,  Bills,  Motions, 
into  limbo,  and  we  shall  hear  no  more  of  extension  of  local 
government.  This  is  only  one  illustration  among  many  others, 
which,  taken  together,  amount  to  a  demonstration  of  the 
unfitness  and  incompetence  of  our  Imperial  Parliament  for 
dealing  with  the  political  needs,  the  admitted  and  avowed 
political  needs,  of  Ireland.  One  speaker  said  something  about 
fisheries.  There  was  a  Select  Committee  appointed  in  1884, 
and  there  was  another  Royal  Commission  reporting  a  few 
weeks  ago,  but  I  am  not  sanguine  enough  to  think  that  more 
will  be  done  in  consequence  of  the  recommendations  of  that 
( lommission  than  has  been  done  in  consequence  of  the  recom- 
mendation of  others.  Again,  there  are  the  Irish  railways.  I 
wrong,   by  the  way,   that  a  Royal  Commission  was  on 

—it  was  on  Irish  industries  generally,  fisheries  included. 

<  >n  the  question  of  railways  there  was  a  Royal  Commission  in 

1867,  and  a  small  Committee  was  appointed  in  1868.     There 

id  admirable  reports.     There  is  another  copious 

and   admirable   report   laid   on   the   table   of   the    House   of 

imons  this  week.     Nothing  has  been  done,  and  I  do  not 

inything  will  be  done.     That  is  another  field  in  which 


John  Morley  on  Home  Rule.  307 

Ireland  abounds  in  requirements  and  necessities,  and  which 
the  British  Parliament  has  not  the  power,  knowledge,  or 
inclination  to  deal  with  or  to  touch. 

One  gentleman  who  spoke  to-night  with  great  ability— and  if 
people  think  these  things  I  do  not  know  why  they  should  not 
be  said— reproduced  to  my  regret  the  old  talk  about  the 
Hottentots.  I  confess  this  is  the  most  painful  part  of  the 
present  controversy — that  there  should  be  men  (I  am  sure  he  is 
one  of  them)  of  generous  minds,  of  public  spirit  and  patriotism, 
who  talk,  and  sincerely  talk,  of  union,  and  the  incorporation  of 
Ireland  with  Britain,  and  yet  think  that  this  kind  of  language, 
and  what  is  far  more,  this  kind  of  feeling,  is  a  way  likely  to 
produce  incorporation  and  union.  I  have  seen  a  good  deal  of 
Irishmen.  I  saw  a  great,  a  tremendous  crowd  of  Irishmen  the 
other  day  on  their  own  soil.  They  comported  themselves, 
many  tens  and  scores  of  thousands  of  them,  comported  them- 
selves with  a  good  humour,  a  perfect  order,  a  temper  generally 
of  which  any  capital  in  Europe — London,  Paris,  Berlin,  or 
Vienna — might  have  been  proud.  I  think  you  can  do  some- 
thing better  with  such  a  people  than  alienate  them  by  calling 
them  and  by  thinking  of  them  as  Hottentots,  or  as  in  any  way 
inferior  to  ourselves.  That  is  not  the  way  to  have  union  and 
incorporation.  That  is  not  the  way  to  make  the  Empire 
stronger.  And  I  apply  the  same  to  the  language  that  is  used 
about  the  Irish  members.  I  am  not  prepared  to  defend  all 
that  the  Irish  members  have  said  and  done.  No,  and  I  am 
not  prepared  to  defend  all  that  English  members  have  done. 
But  I  ask  here,  as  I  asked  in  Dublin,  is  there  to  be  no 
amnesty  ?  Is  there  never  to  be  an  act  of  oblivion  ?  These 
men,  after  all,  have  forced  upon  the  British  Legislature,  and 
have  extorted  from  the  British  Legislature,  laws  for  the  benefit 
of  their  own  down-trodden  and  oppressed  people.  Those 
laws  were  either  right  or  wrong.  If  they  were  wrong,  the 
British  Legislature  ought  not  to  have  passed  them.  If  they 
were  right,  you  ought  to  be  very  much  obliged  to  the  Irish 
members  for  awakening  your  sense  of  equity  and  of  right. 


3oS  Modern  Political  Orations. 

I  return  again— I  am  going  to  conclude  in  a  moment— I 
return  again  to  the  point.     You  have  the  future  in  your  hands, 
because  what  has  been  said  is  true  ;  the  future  depends  upon 
the  opinions  of  the  men  between  twenty  and  thirty,  which,  I 
take  it,  is  the  average  of  the  audience  I  have  the  honour  of 
What  is  the  condition  of  Ireland  ?     Here,  too,  I 
will  repeat  what  I  said  in   Dublin.     In   Ireland  you  have  a 
gared   gentry  ;    a    bewildered    peasantry ;    a    random    and 
harsh  and  aimless  system  of  government ;  a  population  fevered 
by  political  power  and  not  sobered  by  political  responsibility. 
Tin's  is  what  you  have  to  deal  with ;  and  I  say  here,  with  a  full 
sense  of  important  responsibility,  that  rather  than    go  on  in 
face  of  that  distracted  picture,  with  the  present  hard,  inco- 
herent, cruel  system  of  government  in  Ireland,  rather  than  do 
that  I  would  assent  to  the  proposal  that  has  been  made,  if 
that  were   the  only  alternative,   by  a  great  representative  of 
the    Unionist   party,   by   Lord    Grey.     And   what  does   Lord 
Grey  suggest?     Lord  Grey  suggests  that  the  Lord-Lieutenant 
should   be  appointed    for    ten    years,  and    during   those   ten 
years— it  is  a  strong  order— during  those  ten  years  he  is  to 
make  what  laws  he  thinks  fit  without  responsibility  either  to 
Ministers  or  to  Parliament.     It  is  a  strong  order,  but  I  de- 
clare—and I  believe  that  Mr  Parnell  has  said  that  he  agrees— 
that  I  would   rather   see   Ireland  made   a  Crown  Colony  to- 
morrow  than  go  on  in  the  present  hypocritical  and  inefficient 
system    of  sham    representation.      You    may    then   have   the 
severity  of  paternal  repression,  but  you  will    have  the   bene- 
of    paternal   solicitude    and    supervision.      What   you 
have    is    i  ion    and    neglect;    and    repression    and 

you   will   have  until   you  call  the  Irish  leaders  into 
icil   and    give   to  the  majority  of  the   Irish   people   that 
n  reality  which  now  they  have  only  in  name. 
One    minute  more  and   I   will  sit  down.     The  Resolution 
fairly  the  great  issue  that  now  divides  and  engages 
IS  minds  in  this  country — the  issue  which  has  broken 
political  party,  which  has   tried   and   tested   more 


John  Morley  on  Home  Ride.  309 

than  one  splendid  reputation,  and  in  which  the  Liberal  party 
have  embarked  all  their  hopes  and  fortunes  as  resolutely  and 
as  ungrudgingly  as  their  forefathers  did  in  the  case  of  Catholic 
Emancipation.  The  opponents  of  this  Resolution  ought  to 
have  told  us,  what  no  opponent  to-night  did  tell  us- -for  I 
listened  very  carefully — they  ought  to  have  told  us  what  it  is 
they  mean.  Merely  to  vote  a  blank  and  naked  negative  to 
this  Resolution  ?  It  is  not  enough,  it  cannot  be  all,  merely  to 
say  "No"  to  this  Resolution.  You  are  not  going  through  the 
familiar  process  of  rejecting  an  academic  Motion  or  an  abstract 
proposition.  In  refusing  this  proposition  you  are  adopting  an 
Amendment.  I  have  taken  the  liberty  to  draft  a  Unionist 
Amendment.  I  will  gladly  place  it  in  the  hands  of  any 
Unionist  Member  who  may  think  it  expedient  to  move  it. 
This  is  the  alternative  Amendment  to  the  Resolution  of  the  hon. 
mover — "That,  inasmuch  as  Coercion,  after  being  tried  in  every 
form  and  under  all  varieties,  has  failed  to  bring  to  Ireland  that 
order  and  content  we  all  earnestly  desire,  Coercion  shall  be 
made  the  permanent  law  of  the  land  ;  That  as  perfect  equality 
between  England  and  Ireland  is  the  key  to  a  sound  policy, 
Coercion  shall  be  the  law  in  Ireland  and  shall  not  be  the  law 
in  England  ;  That  as  decentralisation  and  local  government 
have  been  long  recognised  and  constantly  promised  as  a 
necessary  reform  in  Irish  affairs,  the  time  has  at  length  arrived 
for  definitely  abandoning  all  reform  in  Irish  local  govern- 
ment ;  That  since  the  backward  condition,  and  the  manv 
admitted  needs  of  Ireland  urgently  call  for  the  earnest  and 
unremitting  attention  of  her  rulers,  the  exclusive  attention 
of  this  Parliament  shall  be  devoted  to  the  consideration  of 
English,  Scotch,  and  Welsh  affairs ;  That,  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  representative  institutions  are  the  glory  and  strength  of 
the  United  Kingdom,  the  Constitutional  demands  of  the  great 
majority  of  the  Irish  representatives  shall  be  disregarded,  and 
these  representatives  shall  have  no  voice  in  Irish  affairs  and 
no  share  in  Irish  government ;  and,  finally,  That  as  Mr  Pitt 
declared  the  great  object  of  the  Union  to  be  to  make  the 


3 1  o  Modern  Political  Orations. 

Empire  more  secure  by  making  Ireland  more  free  and  more 
happy,  it  is  the  duty  of  every  true  Unionist  to  make  Ireland 
more  miserable  in  order  to  prevent  her  from  being  free." 

That,  Sir,  is  the  Amendment  which  you  are,  I  fear,  presently 
going  to  vote.  [Cries  of  "No  I"  Yes,  you  are.  That  is 
what  you  are  going  to  vote,  and  I  have  failed  in  the  speech 
which  you  have  most  kindly  and  indulgently  listened  to,  if  you 
do  not  see  that  that  Amendment,  with  its  stream  of  paradoxes 
and  incoherencies,  represents  the  Unionist  policy.  That  is  a 
policy  which  judgment  condemns  and  which  conscience 
forbids. 


RICHARD   COBDEN    ON   THE    CORN 

LAWS. 

House  of  Commons,  February  24TH,  1842. 

[The  original  motion  for  the  total  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws,  passed  in  1815, 
was  made  in  the  House  by  the  Hon.  Chas.  Pelham  Villiers  (now  known  as 
"the  Father  of  the  House  of  Commons"),  February  iSth,  1842,  when  he 
presented  and  read  a  numerously-signed  petition  from  the  three  kingdoms 
praying  that  the  Corn  Laws  be  immediately  repealed.] 

Sir, — The  right  hon.  gentleman  who  has  just  sat  down  (Sir 
Howard  Douglas)  would  have  given  still  greater  satisfaction  to 
the  House  if  he  had  assured  us  that  he  would,  when  he  spoke, 
always  keep  strictly  to  the  subject-matter  under  discussion. 
I  must  be  allowed  to  say  that  my  hon.  friend  the  member  for 
Wolverhampton  (the  Hon.  C.  P.  Villiers)  has  very  just  grounds 
for  complaining  that  in  all  this  discussion,  to  which  I  have 
been  listening  for  seven  nights,  while  there  has  been  much 
talk  of  our  trade  with  China,  and  of  the  war  with  Syria,  while 
there  has  been  much  contest  between  parties  and  partisans, 
there  has  been  very  little  said  upon  the  question  really  in 
hand.  I  may  safely  say  that,  on  the  other  side,  not  one 
speaker  has  grappled  with  the  question  so  ably  laid  down  by 
my  hon.  friend.  That  question  simply  is,  how  far  it  is  just, 
honest,  and  expedient,  that  any  tax  whatever  should  be  laid 
upon  the  food  of  the  people.  This  is  the  question  we  have 
to  decide ;  and  when  I  heard  the  right  hon.  Baronet  (Sir 
Robert  Peel)  so  often  express  the  deep  sympathy  he  felt  for  the 
working  classes,  I  did  expect  that  he  would  not  have  finished 
his  last  speech  without  giving  some  little  consideration  to  the 
case  of  the  working  man  in  connection  with  this  question.     I 


12 


Modem  Political  Orations. 


will  venture  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Committee  to  the 
question  of  the  Bread  Tax  as  connected  with  the  labouring 
classes  as  it  bears  upon  the  wages  of  labour;  and  I  call  upon 
you  all  to  meet  me  upon  neutral  ground  while  we  discuss  the 
interests  of  those  working  people  who  have  no  representatives 
in  this  House.  As  I  hear  from  the  other  side  so  many  and 
such  strong  expressions  of  sympathy,  I  call  upon  them  to  give 
practical  proof  of  the  existence  of  that  sympathy  with  the  hard 
labouring  population,  and  not  to  delay  until  they  are  reduced 
to  that  state  when  they  can  only  receive  the  benefits  of  your 
legislation  in  the  abject  condition  of  pauperism. 

Sir,  in  reading,  which  I  have  done  with  some  attention,  the 
reports  of  the  debates  which  took  place  in  1815,  prior  to  the 
passing  of  the  Corn  Bill  of  that  year,  I  have  been  struck  with 
the  observation  that  all  who  took  part  in  that  discussion  agreed 
on  one  point  of  the  subject,  namely,  that  the  price  of  food 
regulated  the  rate  of  wages.  That  principle  was  not  only  laid 
down  by  one  side  of  the  House,  but  it  met  with  the  concur- 
rence of  both.  Men  the  most  opposite  in  political  opinions  I 
find  agreeing  upon  that  principle.  Mr  Horner,  Mr  Baring, 
Mr  Frankland  Lewis,  Mr  Philips,  Mr  Western,  those  who 
opposed  the  Corn  Law,  and  those  who  strenuously  advocated 
its  principle,  all  alike  agreed  upon  the  same  point,  that  the 
price  of  food  regulated  the  price  of  labour.  So  completely  did 
they  agree,  that  one  speaker  laid  down  the  principle  mathemati- 
cally, and  framed  a  computation  in  figures  to  show  the  relative 
proportions  in  which  the  principle  would  work,  and  to  what 
extent  the  payment  of  labour  would  rise  or  fall  in  ratio  to  the 
rise  or  fall  of  the  price  of  food.  The  same  delusion  existed 
amongst  the  capitalists  out  of  doors.  There  was  a  petition 
presented  in  1815,  signed  by  the  most  intelligent  merchants 
and  manufacturers  in  Manchester,  praying  that  the  Corn  Law 
should  not  pass,  because  it  would  so  raise  the  rate  of  wages 
that  the  British  manufacturers  would  no  longer  be  able  to  com- 
])<J(j  with  those  abroad,  who  had  to  pay  wages  so  much  less  in 
amount.     That  delusion  certainly  did  then  exist;  but  I  have 


Richci7'd  Cobden  on  the  Com  Laws.        3 1 3 

been  struck  with  the  deepest  sorrow  to  observe  that  the  minds  of 
many  men  who  bear  their  part  in  the  discussion  now  should  still 
be  labouring  under  the  same  erroneous  impression.  The  great 
body  of  those  who  legislated  in  18 15  passed  their  Bill  in  the 
honest  delusion  that  the  operation  of  the  law  would  be  such 
as  I  have  described.  I  believe  that  if  the  fact,  if  the  true  state 
of  the  case  had  been  then  known,  if  they  had  known  what  now 
we  know,  that  law  would  never  have  been  passed  in  181 5. 
Every  party  in  the  House,  and  many  out  of  doors,  were 
deceived  ;  but  there  was  one  party  which  was  not  deluded— the 
party  most  interested  in  the  question — namely,  the  working 
classes.  They  were  not  deluded,  for  they  saw  with  instinctive 
sagacity,  without  the  aids  of  learning  and  education,  without 
the  pretence  of  political  wisdom,  what  would  be  the  operation 
of  the  law  upon  the  rate  of  wages.  Therefore  it  was,  that  when 
that  law  was  passed  your  House  was  surrounded  by  the  excited 
populace  of  London,  and  you  wrere  compelled  to  keep  back  an 
enraged  people  from  your  doors  by  the  point  of  the  bayonet. 
When  that  law  passed  Murder  ensued.  Yes,  I  call  it  Murder, 
for  a  coroner's  jury  returned  a  verdict  of  Wilful  Murder  against 
the  soldiers.  The  disturbances  were  not  confined  to  London ; 
but  throughout  the  North  of  England,  from  18 15  to  18 19,  when 
the  great  meeting  took  place  on  Peter's-field,  there  never  was 
a  meeting  in  the  north  of  England  in  which  banners  were  not 
displayed  with  inscriptions  of  "  No  Corn  Laws  ! "  There  was 
no  mistake  in  the  minds  of  the  multitudes  upon  this  question. 
It  was  always  understood  by  them.  Do  not  let  hon.  gentle- 
men suppose  that  there  is  any  mistake  in  the  minds  of  the 
working  classes  upon  this  topic.  There  never  was,  and  there 
is  not  now.  They  may  not  indeed  cry  out  exclusively  for  the 
repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws ;  they  have  looked  beyond  the  ques- 
tion, and  they  have  seen,  at  the  same  time,  other  evils  greater 
than  this  which  they  are  now  calling  upon  you  to  remedy ;  and 
when  they  raise  the  cry  of  Universal  Suffrage  and  The  People's 
Charter,  do  not  let  hon.  gentlemen  opposite  suppose,  because 
the  Anti-Corn  Law   League  may,  perchance,  have   run   into 


3i4  Modem  Pol h 'Heal  Orations. 

collision  with  the  masses  upon  some  points,  that  the  people  are 
•onsequently  favourable  to  the  existence  of  the  Corn  Laws. 

What  has  surprised  me  more  than  anything  is  to  find  that 
in   this   House,    where   lecturers   are,   of  all   men,   so  much 
decried    there   exists   on  the  other   side  such  an  ignorance 
upon  this  subject.      [Cries  of  "Oh!  Oh!"]     Yes,  I  say,  an 
ignorance  upon  this  subject  that  I  never  saw  equalled  in  any 
body  of  working  men  in  the  North  of  England.    ["  Oh  !  Oh  !  "J 
Do  you  think  that  the  fallacy  of  1815,  which,  to  my  astonish- 
ment, I  heard  put  forth  in  the  House  last  week,  namely,  that 
wages  rise  and  fall  with  the  price  of  food,  can  prevail  with  the 
minds  of  the  working  men  after  the  experience  of  the  last 
three  years  ?    Have  you  not  had  bread  higher  during  that  time 
than   during   any  three   years  during  the  last  twenty  years? 
Yes.    Vet  during  those  three  years  the  wages  of  labour  in  every 
branch  of  industry  have  suffered  a  greater  decline  than  in  any 
three  years  before.     Still,  hon.  gentlemen  opposite,  with  the 
reports  of  Committees  before  them,  which,  if  they  would  take 
the  trouble  to  consult  them,  would  prove  the  decline  of  wages 
within    those   three   years,   are    persisting  in   maintaining  the 
doctrine  that  the  price  of  food  regulates  the  rate  of  wages  under 
the  belief  that  this  new  law  will  keep  up  the  price  of  labour. 
Then  I  am  told  that  the  price  of  labour  in  this  country  is  so 
much   higher   than  the  wages  abroad,    that   the  Corn   Laws 
must  be  kept  up  in  order  to  keep  up  labour  to  the  proper 
level.     Sir,  I  deny  that  labour  in  this  country  is  higher  paid 
than  on  the  Continent.     On  the  contrary,  I  am  prepared  to 
prove,  from  documents  on  the  table  of  your  own  House,  that 
the  price  of  labour  is  cheaper  here  than  in  any  other  part  of 
the  globe.     I  hear  an  expression  of  dissent  on  the  other  side, 
but  I  say  to  hon.  gentlemen,  when  they  measure  the  labour  of  an 
Englishman  against  the  labour  of  the  foreigner,  they  measure  a 
day's  labour  indeed  with  a  day's  labour,  but  they  forget  the 
tive  quality  of  the  labour.     I  maintain  that  if  quality  is  to 
die   test,   the   labour  of   England  is   the  cheapest  in  the 
W(  rid.     The  Committee  which  sat  on  Machinery  in  the  last 


Richard  Cobden  on  the  Corn  Laws.         3 1 5 

Session  but  one,  demonstrated  by  their  Report  that  labour  on 
the  Continent  is  dearer  than  in  England.  You  have  proof  of 
it.  Were  it  not  so,  do  you  think  you  would  find  in  Germany, 
France,  or  Belgium  so  many  English  workmen  ?  Go  into  any 
city  from  Calais  to  Vienna,  containing  a  population  of  more  than 
10,000  inhabitants,  and  will  you  not  find  numbers  of  English 
artisans  working  side  by  side  with  the  natives  of  the  place,  and 
earning  twice  as  much  as  they  do,  or  even  more?  Yet  the 
masters  who  employ  them  declare,  notwithstanding  the  pay  is 
higher,  that  the  English  labour  is  cheaper  to  them  than  the 
native  labour.  Yet  we  are  told  that  the  object  of  the  manu- 
facturers in  repealing  the  Corn  Laws  is  to  lower  wages  to  the 
level  of  the  Continent.  It  was  justly  said  by  the  hon.  member 
for  Kilmarnock  that  the  manufacturers  did  not  require  to  lower 
the  rate  of  wages  in  order  to  gain  high  profits.  If  you  want 
proof  of  the  prosperity  of  manufacturers,  you  will  find  it  when 
wages  are  high  ;  but  when  wages  drop,  the  profits  of  the  manu- 
facturer drop  also.  I  think  manufacturers  take  too  intelligent 
and  enlightened  a  view  of  their  own  position  and  interest  to 
suppose  that  the  impoverishment  of  the  multitudes  they  employ 
can  promote  or  increase  manufacturing  prosperity. 

Sir,  by  deteriorating  such  a  vast  population  as  that  employed 
in  manufactures,  you  run  the  risk  of  spoiling  not  the  animal 
man  only,  but  the  intellectual  creature  also.  It  is  not  from 
the  wretched  that  great  things  can  emanate ;  it  is  not  a  potato- 
fed  population  that  ever  led  the  world  in  arts  or  arms,  in 
manufactures  or  commerce.  If  you  want  your  people  to  be 
virtuous  or  happy,  you  must  take  care  that  they  are  well  fed. 
Upon  this  assumption,  then,  that  the  manufacturers  want  to 
reduce  wages,  and  upon  the  assumption  that  the  Corn  Laws 
keep  up  the  price  of  labour,  we  are  going  to  pass  a  law  to  tax 
the  food  of  the  hardworking,  deserving  population  !  What 
must  be  the  result?  You  have  heard,  from  the  right  hon. 
Baronet,  Sir  Robert  Peel,  an  answer  to  the  fallacy  about  our 
competing  with  foreign  manufacturers.  He  has  told  you  we 
export  forty  or  fifty  millions.     We  do  then  already  compete 


1 16  Modem  Political  Orations. 

with  foreigners.  You  tax  the  bones  and  muscles  of  your 
leople.  You  put  a  double  weight  upon  their  shoulders,  and 
then  you  turn  round  upon  them  and  tell  them  to  run  a  race 
with  Germany  and  France.  I  would  ask,  with  Mr  Deacon 
Hume,  who  has  been  before  quoted  in  this  House,  "To  whom 
do  the  energies  of  the  British  people  belong?  Are  they 
theirs  or  are  they  yours?"  Think  you  that  these  energies 
were  given  to  the  English  people  that  they  might  struggle  for  a 
bare  existence,  whilst  you  take  from  them  half  of  what  they 
earn?  Is  this  doing  justice  to  the  "high-mettled  racer"? 
Why,  you  don't  treat  your  horses  so.  You  give  your  cattle 
food  and  rest  in  proportion  to  their  toil,  but  men  in  England 
are  now  actually  treated  worse.  Yes,  tens  of  thousands  of 
them  were  last  winter  treated  worse  than  your  dogs  and  your 
horses.  What  is  the  pretence  upon  which  you  tax  the  people's 
food  ?  We  have  been  told  by  the  right  hon.  Baronet  that  the 
object  of  the  law  is  to  fix  a  certain  price  for  corn.  Since  I 
have  been  listening  to  this  debate,  in  which  I  heard  it  proposed 
by  a  Prime  Minister  to  fix  the  price  of  corn,  I  doubted  whether 
or  not  we  had  gone  back  to  the  days  of  our  Edwards  again, 
and  whether  we  had  or  had  not  travelled  back  some  three  or 
four  centuries,  when  they  used  to  fix  the  price  of  a  table-cloth 
or  a  pair  of  shoes.  What  an  avocation  for  a  legislator !  To 
fix  the  price  of  corn  !  Why,  that  should  be  done  in  the 
open  market  by  the  dealers.  You  don't  fix  the  price  of 
cotton,  or  silk,  or  iron,  or  tin.  But  how  are  you  going  to  fix 
this  price  of  corn  ?  Going  back  some  ten  years,  the  right  hon. 
Baronet  finds  the  average  price  of  corn  is  56s.  iod.,  and  there- 
fore, says  he,  I  propose  to  keep  up  the  price  of  wheat  from  54s. 
to  58s.  The  right  lion.  Baronet's  plan  means  that  or  nothing. 
I  have  heard  something  about  the  prices  which  it  has  been 
proposed  by  legislation  to  affix  to  wheat.  I  remember  that 
Lord  Willoughby  D'Eresby  said  the  minimum  price  ought  to 
be  58s.,  and  I  see  by  the  newspapers  that  the  Duke  of  Bucking- 
ham has  just  announced  his  opinion  that  60s.  ought  to  be  the 
lowest.     There  is  one  hon.  gentleman  in  this  House  who,  I 


Richard  Cobden  on  the  Corn  Laws.        3 1 7 

hope,  will  speak  on  this  subject — for  I  have  seen  him  endeav- 
ouring to  catch  the  Speaker's  eye — and  who  has  gone  a  little 
more  into  particulars  respecting  the  market  price  he  intends  to 
procure  for  commodities  by  Act  of  Parliament.  I  see  in  a 
useful  little  book  called  "The  Parliamentary  Pocket  Com- 
panion," in  which  there  are  some  nice  little  descriptions  given 
of  ourselves,  under  the  head  "  Cayley,"  that  that  gentleman  is 
described  as  being  the  advocate  of  "  such  a  course  of  legislation 
with  regard  to  agriculture  as  will  keep  wheat  at  64s.  a  quarter, 
new  milk  cheese  at  52s.  to  60s.  per  cwt.,  wool  and  butter  at  is. 
per  lb.  each,  and  other  produce  in  proportion."  Now  it  might 
be  very  amusing  that  there  were  to  be  found  some  gentlemen 
still  at  large  who  advocated  the  principle  of  the  interposition 
of  Parliament  to  fix  the  price  at  which  articles  should  be  sold  ; 
but  when  we  find  a  Prime  Minister  coming  down  to  Parliament 
to  avow  such  principles,  it  really  becomes  anything  but  amus- 
ing. I  ask  the  right  hon.  Baronet,  and  I  pause  for  a  reply :  Is 
he  prepared  to  carry  out  that  principle  in  the  articles  of  cotton 
and  wool  ?  [Sir  Robert  Peel  :  It  is  impossible  to  fix  the 
price  of  food  by  legislation.]  Then  on  what  are  we  legislating  ? 
I  thank  the  right  hon.  Baronet  for  his  avowal.  Perhaps,  then, 
he  will  oblige  us  by  not  trying  to  do  so.  Supposing,  however, 
that  he  will  make  the  attempt,  I  ask  the  right  hon.  gentleman, 
and  again  I  pause  for  a  reply  :  Will  he  try  to  legislate  so  as  to 
keep  up  the  prices  of  cotton,  silk,  and  wool  ?  No  reply.  Then 
we  have  come  to  this  conclusion — that  we  are  not  legislating 
for  the  universal  people.  We  are  openly  avowing  that  we 
are  met  here  to  legislate  for  a  class  against  the  people.  When 
I  consider  this  I  don't  marvel,  although  I  have  seen  it  with  the 
deepest  regret,  and  I  may  add  indignation,  that  we  have  been 
surrounded  during  the  course  of  the  debates  of  the  last  week 
by  an  immense  body  of  police.  [Cries  of  "  Oh  !  oh ! "  and 
laughter  from  the  Ministerial  side.~\ 

I  will  not  let  this  subject  drop,  even  though  I  may  be  greeted 
with  laughter.  It  is  no  laughing  matter  to  those  who  have  got 
no  wheat  to  sell,  nor  money  to  purchase  it  from  those  who 


J 


i  S  Modern  Political  Orations. 


have.     If  the  agriculturists  are  to  have  the  benefit  of  a  law 
founded  on  the  calculation  of  ten  years'  average,  to  keep  up 
their  price  at  that  average,  I  ask,  are  the  manufacturers  to 
have  it  too  ?     Take  the  manufacturers  of  the  Midland  counties, 
the  manufacturers  of  the  very  articles  the  agriculturists  con- 
Their   goods   have   depreciated   30   per  cent,  in  the 
last  ten  years.     Are  they  to  continue  to  exchange  their  com- 
modities for  the  corn  of  the  landlord,  who  has  the  benefit  of 
a  law  keeping  up  his  price  on  a  calculation  of  a  ten  years' 
average,  without  the  iron  manufacturer  having  the  benefit  of 
the  same  calculation?     I  have  great  doubts  whether  this  is 
legislation  at  all.     I  deny  that  it  is  honest  legislation.     It  is  no 
answer  for  the  right  hon.  Baronet  to  say  that  he  cannot,  even 
if  he  wished,  pass  a  law  to  keep  up  the  price  of  manufactures. 
It  is  no  satisfaction  for  being  injured  by  a  Prime  Minister  to 
be  told  that  he  has  not  the  power,  even  if  lie  has  the  will, 
to  make  amendment.     I  only  ask  him  to  abstain  from  doing 
that  for  which  he  cannot  make  atonement,  and  surely  there  is 
nothing  unreasonable  in  that  request.    I  have  but  touched  upon 
the  skirts  of  this  subject.    I  ask  the  right  hon.  Baronet  whether, 
while  he  fixes  the  scale  of  prices  to  secure  the  landowners 
56s.   a   quarter,   he  has  got  also  a  sliding  scale  for  wages? 
I  know  but  of  one  class  of  labourers  in  this  country  whose 
interests  are  well  secured  by  the  sliding  scale  of  corn  duties, 
and  that  class  is  the  clergy  of  the  Established  Church,  whose 
tithes  are  calculated  upon  the  averages.     But  I  want  to  know 
what  you  will  do  with  the  hardworking    classes  of  the  com- 
munity, the  labouring  artisans,  if  the  price  of  bread  is  to  be 
kept  up  by  Act  of  Parliament.     Will  you  give  them  a  law  to 
keep  up  their  rate  of  wages?     You  will  say  that  you  cannot 

p  up  the  rate  of  wages;  but  that  is  no  reason  why  you 
should  pass  a  law  to  mulct  the  working  man  of  one-third  of  the 
loaf  he  earns.  I  know  well  the  way  in  which  the  petitions  of 
the  hand-loom  weavers  were  received  in  this  House.     "Poor 

■iant  men,"  you  said,  "they  know  not  what  they  ask,  they 
are  not  political  economists,  they  do  not  know  that  the  price 


Richard  Cob  den  on  the  Corn  Laws.        319 

of  labour,  like  other  commodities,  finds  its  own  level  by  the 
ordinary  law  of  supply  and  demand.  We  can  do  nothing  for 
them."  But  I  ask,  then,  why  do  you  pass  a  law  to  keep  up  the 
price  of  corn,  and  at  the  same  time  say  you  cannot  pass  a  law 
to  keep  up  the  price  of  the  poor  man's  labour?  This  is  the 
point  of  view  in  which  the  country  are  approaching  this  question  ; 
and  the  flimsy  veil  of  sophistry  you  are  throwing  over  the 
question,  and  the  combination  of  figures  put  together  and 
dovetailed  to  answer  a  particular  purpose,  will  not  satisfy  the 
people  of  England,  till  you  show  them  that  you  are  legislating 
impartially  for  the  advantage  of  all  classes,  and  not  for  the 
exclusive  benefit  of  one.  What  are  the  pretexts  upon  which  this 
Corn  Tax  is  justified  ?  We  have  heard,  in  the  first  place,  that 
there  are  exclusive  burthens  borne  by  the  agriculturists.  I 
heard  one  explanation  given  of  those  burthens  by  a  facetious 
gentleman  who  sits  near  me.  He  said  that  the  only  exclusive 
burthens  upon  the  land  which  he  knew  of  were  mortgages.  I 
think  the  country  has  a  right  to  know,  and  indeed  I  think  it 
would  have  been  no  more  than  what  was  due  to  this  House  if 
those  burthens  of  which  we  have  heard  so  much  had  been 
named  and  enumerated.  The  answer  I  heard  from  the  right 
hon.  gentleman  (Sir  R.  Peel)  opposite  was  that  there  was  a 
great  variety  of  opinions  on  the  subject  of  these  burthens. 
That  I  could  myself  have  told  the  right  hon.  Baronet.  As  a 
law  is  to  be  framed,  founded  expressly  upon  these  alleged 
burthens,  it  would  have  been  but  fair  at  least  to  tell  us  what 
they  are.  I  shall  not  enter  upon  the  subject  now ;  but  this  I 
will  tell  the  right  hon.  gentleman,  that  for  every  particular 
burthen  he  can  show  me  as  pressing  upon  the  land,  I  will 
show  him  ten  exemptions.     Yes,  ten  for  his  one. 

There  is  one  burthen  that  was  referred  to  by  the  right  hon. 
Member  for  Renfrewshire  (Mr  P.  M.  Stewart),  which  is  the 
Land  Tax.  I  am  surprised  we  have  not  yet  got  the  returns 
moved  for  many  months  since,  relative  to  the  Land  Tax  of 
other  countries.  What  are  our  ambassadors  and  diplomatists 
about,  that  we  cannot  have  the  returns  of  the  revenue  and  ex- 


320  Modern  Political  Orations. 

pendilure  of  foreign  countries?  Our  own  bureaux  must  be 
badly  kept,  or  we  ought  to  have  this  information  already  here 
in  London.  Being  without  official  information,  however,  I 
will  not  run  the  risk  of  making  a  general  statement,  lest  I 
should  fall  into  error.  I  have,  however,  one  document  which 
is  authentic,  as  it  is  on  the  authority  of  M.  Humaun,  the 
Finance  Minister  of  France ;  and  he  states  that  the  Land  Tax 
in  that  country  is  40  per  cent,  on  the  whole  revenue,  and  25 
per  cent,  on  the  revenue  of  the  proprietors  of  the  soil ;  so  that 
in  France  the  landowner  pays  5s.  in  the  pound,  while  in  this 
country  you  have  a  Land  Tax  of  .£1,900,000,  not  5  per  cent, 
of  the  income,  and  you  call  for  a  fresh  tax  upon  the  poor  man's 
loaf  to  compensate  you  for  the  heavy  burthen  you  bear.  I  will 
tell  the  Prime  Minister  that,  in  laying  on  this  tax  without  first 
stating  his  views  on  this  point,  he  is  not  treating  the  House 
and  the  country  with  proper  respect.  I  have  seen,  with  some 
satisfaction,  that  admissions  have  been  made  (and  indeed  it 
has  not  been  denied)  that  the  profits  of  the  Bread  Tax  go  to 
the  landowners.  Now  in  all  the  old  Committees  on  agricultural 
concerns,  it  was  alleged  that  it  was  a  farmer's  question — an  agri- 
cultural labourer's  question ;  and  never  till  lately  did  I  hear  it 
admitted  that  the  Bread  Tax  did  contribute  to  the  benefit  of 
the  landowners,  on  account  of  those  exclusive  burthens  that 
are  set  up  as  a  pretence  for  its  continuance.  Ought  we  not 
to  know  what  these  burthens  were  when  this  Corn  Law  was 
passed?  Having  patiently  waited  for  twenty-five  years,  I 
think  we  are  entitled  at  last  to  a  clear  explanation  of  the 
pretext  upon  which  you  tax  the  food  of  the  people  for  the 
acknowledged  benefit  of  the  landowners. 

The  right  hon.  Baronet  tells  us  we  must  not  be  dependent 
upon  foreigners  for  our  supply,  or  that  that  dependence  must 
be  supplementary,  that  certain  years  produce  enough  of  corn 
for  the  demand,  and  that  we  must  legislate  for  the  introduction 
of  corn  only  when  it  is  wanted.  Granted.  On  that  point  the 
right  hon.  Baronet  and  I  are  perfectly  agreed.  Let  us  only 
ilate,  if  you  please,  for  the  introduction  of  corn  when  it  is 


Richard  Cobden  on  the  Corn  Laws.        32  i 

wanted.     Exclude  it  as  much  as  you  please  when  it  is  not 
wanted.     But  all  I  supplicate  for  on  the  part  of  the  starving 
people  is,  that  they  and  not  you  shall  be  the  judges  of  when 
corn  is  wanted.      By  what  right  do  you  pretend  to  gauge  the 
appetites    and   admeasure  the   wants  of   millions  of  people? 
Why,  there  is  no  despotism  that  ever  dreamed  of  doing  any- 
thing so  monstrous  as  this  ;  yet  you  sit  here,  and  presume  to 
judge  when  people  want  food,  dole  out  your  supply  when  you 
condescend  to  think  they  want  it,  and  stop  it  when  you  choose 
to  consider  that  they  have  had  enough.     Are  you  in  a  position 
to  judge  of  the  wants  of  artisans,  of  hand-loom  weavers?  you, 
who  never  knew  the  want  of  a  meal  in  your  lives,  do  you  pre- 
sume to  know  when  the  people  want  bread  ?     Why,  in  the 
course  of  the  present  debate  the  right  hon.  Baronet  said  that 
from   1832  to  1836  sufficient  corn  was  produced  at  home  for 
the  population  ;  and  yet  in  his  last  speech  he  told  us  that  there- 
were  800,000  hand-loom  weavers  who  in   1836  were  unable  tc 
supply  themselves  with  the  commonest  wants  and  necessaries 
of  existence,  even  though  they  worked  sixteen  and  eighteen 
hours  a  day.     Was  it  not  also  of  that  period  that  Mr  Inglis, 
the  traveller  in  Ireland,  wrote,  when  he  wound  up  his  account  cf 
that  country  by  the  emphatic  and  startling  declaration  that  one- 
third  part  of  the  population  perished  prematurely  from  diseases 
brought  on  by  the  want  of  the  necessaries  of  life  ?    Yet,  in  that 
state  of  things,  the  right  hon.  Baronet  gravely  comes  forward, 
and  tells  us  that  the  country  produces  a  sufficiency  of  food  ! 

I  have  heard  other  admissions  too ;  one  in  particular  by  the 
right  hon.  Paymaster  of  the  Forces  (Sir  E.  Knatchbull),  who 
said  the  landlords  were  entitled  to  the  Corn  Law  to  enable 
them  to  maintain  a  high  station  in  the  land.  [Sir  E.  Knatch- 
I'.ull  :  To  enable  them  to  maintain  their  present  station  in 
Society.]  A  noble  Lord,  also  (Lord  Stanley),  admitted  that  the 
price  of  food  did  keep  up  the  rent  of  land,  but  did  not  raise 
wages.  What  does  that  mean,  but  that  the  rent  of  land  is  kept 
up  at  the  expense  of  the  working  classes,  who  are  unrepre- 
sented in  this  House  ?     I  say  that  the  right  hon.  Paymaster  of 

x 


322  Modem  Political  Orations. 

the  Forces  and  the  noble  Lord  do  not  deal  fairly  with  the 
people,  for  they  are  giving  themselves  an  outdoor  relief  which 
they  deny  to  the  poor  in  the  Union  Workhouses.     It  is  not 
merely  an  extension  of  the  Pension  List  to  the  landed  pro- 
prietors, as  was  said  by  The  Times  some  years  ago,  when  that 
paper  stigmatised  the  Corn  Laws  as  an  extension  of  the  Pension 
List  to  the  whole  of  the  landed  aristocracy  ;  it  is  the  worst  form 
of  pauperism  ;  it  is  the  aristocracy  submitting  to  be  fed  at  the 
expense  of  the  poorest  of  the  poor.     If  this  is  to  be  so,  if  we 
are  to  bow  our  necks  to  a  landed  oligarchy,  let  things  be  as 
they  were   in   ancient  Venice;    let  the  nobles    inscribe  their 
names  in  a  golden  book,  and  draw  their  money  direct  from  the 
Exchequer.     It  would  be  better  for  the  people  thus  to  suffer 
our  aristocracy  than  to  circumscribe  our  trade,   destroy  our 
manufactures,  and  draw  the  money  from  the  pockets  of  the 
poor  by  indirect  and  insidious  means.     Such  a  course  would 
be  more  easy  for  us,  and  more  honest  for  you.     But  have  the 
hon.  gentlemen  who  maintain  a  system  like  this  considered 
that  the  people  of  this  country  are  beginning  to  understand  it  a 
little   better   than   they  did?     And   do   they   think   that  the 
people,  with  a  better  understanding  of  the  subject,  will  allow 
one  class  not  only  to  tax  the  rest  of  the  community  for  their 
own    exclusive    advantage,    but   to   be    living   in   a   state   of 
splendour  upon  means  obtained  by  indirect  taxation  from  the 
pockets  of  the  poor?     The  right  hon.  Baronet  (Sir  R.  Peel),  I 
apprehend,  knows  more  of  the  state  of  the  country  than  most 
of  his  followers ;  and  I  would  exhort  him  to  bear  in  mind  that 
there  is  a  widespread  feeling  extending  into  every  part  of  the 
country  that  upon  him,  and  him  alone,  will  rest  the  responsi- 
bility of  the  manner  in  which  he  shall  legislate  upon  this  sub- 
ject.    He  has  now  been  in  the  possession  of  a  great  power  for 
many  months;  he  had  due  warning  when  he  took  office  of  the 
course  it  would  be  necessary  for  him  to  pursue.     He  knows  the 
existing  state  of  commerce  and  manufactures.     He  has  had 
ample   opportunities    of  acquainting    himself  with   the  actual 
condition  of  the  people.      He  is  not  legislating  in  the  dark, 
and  this  I  will  venture  to  tell  him.  that  bad  as  he  finds  trade 


Richard  Cobdeii  on  the  Corn  Lazvs.        323 

now,  he  will  live  (if  he  follows  out  the  course  in  which  he 
purposes  to  embark)  to  find  it  much  worse.  I  hope,  sincerely 
hope,  that  he  is  prepared  for  the  consequence.  We  have  never 
heard  of  an  honest  English  merchant  coming  forward  to  say 
that  this  law  would  give  him  a  trade  in  corn.  The  corn  traders 
alone  have  been  appealed  to.  The  right  hon.  Baronet  tells  us 
that  we  must  force  forward  this  discussion,  that  we  must  pro- 
ceed at  once  to  the  settlement  of  this  question,  because,  for- 
sooth, he  has  heard  from  many  corn  traders  that  it  is  very 
important  that  the  matter  should  remain  no  longer  in  abeyance. 
If  the  trade  in  corn  is  still  to  be  left  in  the  hands  of  a  peculiar 
class  of  dealers,  in  the  hands  of  a  class  who  are  habitual 
gamblers,  will  that  be  an  alteration  of  the  law  calculated  to 
amend  the  situation  of  those  who  are  engaged  in  the  general 
trade  and  commerce  of  the  country  ?  Why  should  there  be  corn 
merchants  any  more  than  tea  merchants  or  sugar  merchants  ? 
Why  should  not  the  general  merchant  be  enabled  to  bring- 
back  corn  in  exchange  for  his  exports,  as  well  as  cotton,  tea, 
or  sugar?  Until  you  pass  a  law  enabling  the  merchant  to 
make  a  direct  exchange  for  corn,  as  well  as  for  other  com- 
modities of  foreign  production,  you  will  give  no  substantial 
relief  to  commerce.  Nor  is  your  law  calculated  to  lower  the 
price  of  food.  You  will  have  people  amongst  you  maintaining 
the  same  wolfish  competition  to  raise  the  price  of  bread,  and 
you  will  have  capitalists  day  by  day  struggling  against  bank- 
ruptcy. For  this  state  of  things  the  right  hon.  Baronet,  Sir 
Robert  Peel,  will  be  responsible.  I  own,  indeed,  that  I  heard 
in  the  right  hon.  Baronet's  second  speech  something  like  an 
apologetic  tone  of  reasoning;  some  deprecatory  as  to  his  present 
position,  not  being  able  to  do  all  that  he  would  do.  That  tone 
would  be  very  well  if  the  right  hon.  Baronet  had  been  forced 
into  the  present  position  by  the  people,  or  summoned  there  by 
the  Queen  ;  then  with  some  shadow  of  fairness  he  might  resort 
to  the  plea  that  his  position  was  a  difficult  one,  and  that  he 
would  do  more  if  his  party  would  permit  him.  But  let  me 
remind  the  right  hon  Baronet  that  he  sought  the  position  he 
now  fills,  and  though  I  am  no  friend,  no  political'  partisan,  of 


3  "> 


-4 


Modern  Political  Orations. 


the  noble  Lord  the  member  for  London  (Lord  John  Russ  11), 
though  I  have  no  desire  to  see  him  again  in  power,  governed 
by  his  old  opinions,  this  I  must  say,  that  the  measure  which 
the  noble  Lord  proposed  upon  the  Corn  Law,  though  in 
itself  not  good,  was  still  infinitely  better  than  that  of  the 
rieht  hon.  Baronet.  And  I  beg  to  call  to  the  right  hon. 
Baronet's  mind,  that  if  he  is  now  placed  in  a  situation  of 
difficulty,  that  difficulty  was  sought  by  himself,  and,  con- 
sequently, cannot  now  be  pleaded  in  extenuation  of  his  present 
measure.  He  told  us  at  Tamworth  that  for  years  and  years, 
ay,  even  from  the  passing  of  the  Reform  Bill,  he  had  been 
engaged  in  reconstructing  his  party.  I  presume  he  knew  of 
what  materials  that  party  was  composed.  I  presume  he  was 
not  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  it  consisted  of  monopolists  of 
every  kind  :  of  monopolists  of  religion,  monopolists  of  the 
franchise,  monopolists  of  sugar,  monopolists  of  corn,  mono- 
polists of  timber,  monopolists  of  coffee.  These  were  the 
parties  that  gathered  around  him,  and  out  of  which  he  was  to 
construct  his  new  Parliament.  They  were  fully  alive  to  the 
occasion.  They  set  to  work  to  revive  the  old  system  of 
corruption.  They  bribed  and  they  bought.  Yes,  they  bribed, 
they  bought,  and  they  intimidated,  until  they  found  themselves 
in  office,  and  the  right  hon.  Baronet  at  their  head,  as  their 
leader  and  champion.  Did  he  expect  that  this  party  had 
expended  their  funds  and  their  labour  in  the  Registration 
( 'uurts — for  there,  as  the  right  hon.  Baronet  himself  has  stated, 
I  believe  the  Constitution  will  henceforth  be  fought — did  he 
think  that  they  had  expended  this  labour  and  this  money  in 
r  that  they  might  come  into  office  and  assist  him  to  take 
away  their  monopolies?  The  right  hon.  Baronet  must  have 
known  the  party  he  had  to  deal  with,  for  he  had  a  very  old 
connection  with  them;  and,  therefore,  I  presume  he  was  not 
disappointed  when  he  came  into  office,  having  thrust  out  men 
who,  with  all  their  faults,  were  still  far  better  than  those  who 
succeeded  them.  Having  thrown  those  men  out  of  office,  and 
being  unable  to  carry  the  measure  which  they  proposed,  and 
-   adv  to  cany  into  effect,  I  say  that  he  has  now  no  right 


Richard  Cobden  on  the  Co7'n  Laws.        325 

to  set  up  the  difficulty  of  his  position  as  a  bar  to  the  universal 
condemnation  which  his  proposition  must  receive  in  the 
estimation  of  every  just  politician  in  the  country.  He  is  the 
cause,  yes,  I  say  he  is  the  cause,  of  our  present  position,  and 
upon  his  shoulders  will  the  people  rest  the  whole  of  the 
responsibility. 

I  will  now  say  a  word  to  the  gentlemen  on  this  side  of  the 
House  who  have  such  great  difficulties,  such  bogglings  and 
startings,  at  the  danger  of  giving  their  assent  to  the  motion  of 
my  hon.  friend  the  member  for  Wolverhampton  (Hon.  C.  P. 
Villiers).  I  will  say  a  word  or  two  to  the  noble  Lord  the 
member  for  London  (Lord  John  Russell),  and  to  my  noble 
and  right  hon.  neighbours,  as  to  the  difficulties  of  conscience 
which  they  appear  to  entertain  about  a  total  and  immediate 
repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws.  I  hear  on  this  side  of  the  House,  in 
almost  all  directions,  an  acknowledgment  of  the  principle  for 
which  I  and  others  contend,  that  is,  the  principle  of  perfect 
freedom  in  the  trade  in  corn.  But  there  are  some  of  my  noble 
and  right  hon.  neighbours  who  think  there  should  be  a  duty  on 
corn  for  the  purpose  of  revenue.  How  can  there  be  a  duty  for 
revenue  unless  it  be  a  duty  for  Protection  ?  I  ask  my  noble 
and  right  hon.  neighbours  who  entertain  that  view  of  the  sub- 
ject to  reconsider  it  before  they  go  to  a  division.  With  that 
word  of  advice  to  those  who  sit  near  me,  I  proceed  to  make  a 
remark  in  reference  to  the  little  word  "  now,"  about  which 
many  gentlemen  on  this  side  of  the  House  seem  also  to  feel  a 
considerable  difficulty.  There  are  gentlemen  here  who  think 
that  the  Corn  Laws  ought  to  be  repealed,  but  they  cannot 
reconcile  themselves  to  the  immediate  repeal  of  them.  They 
do  not  like  to  repeal  them  noiu.  "  We  admit,"  say  they,  "  the 
injustice  which  these  laws  inflict  upon  twenty-five  millions  of  the 
people  for  the  advantage  of  a  select  few  ;  but  inasmuch  as  some 
thousands  of  persons  have  a  beneficial  interest  in  this  wrong 
inflicted  upon  the  millions,  we  cannot  suddenly  deprive  them 
of  the  advantage  they  possess."  Now,  with  all  due  deference 
to  gentlemen  who  use  that  argument,  I  must  be  permitted  to 
say  that  I  think  they  are  showing  a  very  great  sympathy  for  the 


326  Modern  Political  Orations. 

few  who  are  gaining,  and  vasriy  little  sympathy  indeed  for  the 
many  who  are  suffering  from  the  operation  of  these  laws.     I 
would  put  it  to  those  gentlemen  whether,  if  it  had  been  in  their 
power,  immediately  after  the  passing  of  the  Corn  Law  in  18 15, 
to  repeal  that  law,  they  would  have  given  any  compensation  to 
the  landed   interest  in  the  shape  of  an    eight  or  ten  years' 
diminishing  duty  upon  the  importation  of  foreign  grain  ?     No  ; 
they  would  have  repealed  them  at  once.     Then,  I  ask,  do  they 
think   that  twenty-seven    years'    possession    of    the  wrong— 
twenty-seven    years    of    exclusive    advantage  —  twenty-seven 
years   of  injustice   to   the   rest   of   the   community,— entitles 
this  interested  and  selfish  party  to  increase  its  demand  in  the 
shape  of  compensation?     I  give  the  hon.  gentlemen  who  are 
near  me  credit  for  being  quite  sincere  in  their  scruples.     I 
have  heard  such  scruples  very  often  expressed  before ;  but  I 
once  heard  them  met  at  a  public  meeting  of  electors  in  what 
appeared  to  me  to  be  a  very  satisfactory  manner.     There  was 
great  difficulty  on  the  platform  among  the  Whig  gentlemen 
who  were  assembled  there  about  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws, 
and  they  were  arguing  about  the  danger  and  hardship  of  an 
immediate  repeal  of  them.     They  were  at  length  interrupted 
by  a  sturdy  labouring  man  in  a  fustian  coat,  who  called  out, 
"Whoi,  mun  !  where 's  the  trouble  of  taking  them  off?     You 
put  them  on  all  of  a  ruck  " ;  meaning  that  they  had  been  put 
on  all  of  a  sudden.     And  so  they  were.     The  law  was  passed 
without  notice  in  iS  15,  notwithstanding  the  remonstrances  of 
the  people. 

Then,  I  say,  let  us  abolish  this  law,  and  the  sooner  the 
better.  I  will  not  trespass  further  upon  the  patience  of  the 
House.  I  consider  that  this  question  is  now  drawn  within 
sucli  narrow  limits  as  to  depend  upon  these  two  points  :  "Are 
you,  the  landed  interest,  able  to  show  that  you  are  subjected 
to  exclusive  burthens?"  If  so,  then  the  way  to  relieve  you  is 
not  to  put  taxes  on  the  rest  of  the  community,  but  to  remove 
your  burthens.  Secondly,  "Are  you  prepared  to  cany  out  even- 
handed  justice  to  the  people?"  If  not,  your  law  will  not  stand  : 
nny,  your  House  itself,  i.  based  upon  injustice,  will  not  stand! 


APPENDIX. 


APPENDIX. 


I. 

THE     TIMES    ON    "PARNELLISM    AND 

CRIME." 

Mr  Parnell  and  the  Phcenix  Park  Murders. 

A  great  sensation  was  created  on  April  18th,  1887,  by  the 
publication  in  The  Times  of  the  following  letter  in  facsimile, 
dated  nine  days  after  the  Phcenix  Park  murders  : — 

"  15/5/82. 
"Dear  Sir, 

"  I  am  not  surprised  at  your  friend's  anger,  but  he  and  you 
should  know  that  to  denounce  the  murders  was  the  only  course  open  to  us. 
To  do  that  promptly  was  plainly  our  best  policy. 

"  Rut  you  can  tell  him,  and  all  others  concerned,  that  though  I  regret  the 
accident  of  Lord  F.  Cavendish's  death,  I  cannot  refuse  to  admit  that 
Burke  got  no  more  than  his  deserts. 

' '  You  are  at  liberty  to  show  him  this,  and  others  whom  you  can  trust 
al»o,  but  let  not  my  address  be  known.  He  can  write  to  House  of 
Commons. 

"  Yours  very  truly, 

"Chas.  S.  Parnell." 

This  was  accompanied  by  the  following  letterpress  : — 

"  In    concluding    our   series    of   articles    on    '  Parnellism    and 

Crime,'   we  intimated  that,  besides  the  damning  facts  which  we 

there   recorded,  unpublished  evidence  existed  which  would  bind 

still  closer  the  links  between  the  'constitutional'  chiefs  and  the 


-"lo   Modern  Political  Orations — Appendix. 

contrivers  of  murder  and  outrage.  In  view  of  the  unblushing 
denials  of  Mr  Sexton  and  Mr  Healy  on  Friday  night,  we  do  not 
think  it  right  to  withhold  any  longer  from  public  knowledge  the 
fact  that  we  possess,  and  have  had  in  our  custody  for  some  time, 
documentary  evidence  which  has  a  most  serious  bearing  on  the 
Parnellite  conspiracy,  and  which,  after  a  most  careful  and  minute 
scrutiny,  is,  we  are  satisfied,  quite  authentic.  We  produce  one 
document  in  facsimile  to-day  by  a  process  the  accuracy  of  which 
cannot  be  impugned,  and  we  invite  Mr  Parnell  to  explain  how  his 
signature  has  become  attached  to  such  a  letter. 

"It  is  requisite  to  point  out  that  the  body  of  the  manuscript  is 
apparently  not  in  Mr  Parnell's  handwriting,  but  the  signature  and 
the  'Yours  very  truly'  unquestionably  are  so  ;  and  if  any  Member 
of  Parliament  doubts  the  fact,  he  can  easily  satisfy  himself  on  the 
matter  by  comparing  the  handwriting  with  that  of  Mr  Parnell  in 
the  book  containing  the  signatures  of  Members  when  they  first  take 
their  seats  in  the  House  of  Commons. 

"We  particularly  direct  attention  to  the  erasure  in  the  manu- 
script,1 as  undersigned  evidence  of  authenticity  ;  and  should  any 
questions  be  raised  as  to  the  body  of  the  letter  being  in  another 
handwriting,  wc  shall  be  prepared  to  adduce  proof  that  this 
pe<  uliarity  is  quite  consistent  with  its  genuine  character. 

"  The  body  of  the  letter  occupies  the  whole  of  the  first  page  of 
an  ordinary  sheet  of  stout  white  note-paper,  leaving  no  room  in 
the  same  page  for  the  signature,  which  is  placed  on  the  fourth  page 
near  the  top  right-hand  corner.  It  was  an  obvious  precaution  to 
sign  upon  the  back  instead  of  upon  the  second  page,  so  that  the 
half-sheet  might,  if  necessary,  be  torn  off,  and  the  letter  dis- 
claimed. 

"It  is  right  and  necessary  to  explain  that  the  'Dear  Sir'  is 
c<l  to  be  Egan,  and  that  the  letter  was  addressed  to  him  in 
onler  to  pacify  the  wrath  of  his  subordinate  instruments  in  the 
nix  Park  murders — then  (on  May  15th,  nine  days  after  the 
tragedy)  still  at  large  and  undetected.  The  anxiety  of  the  writer  to 
his  a  I<1  icss  unknown  will  be  noted,  and  is  curious  in  connec- 
tion with  a  belief  prevailing  at  the  time  that  Mr  Parnell  was  so 
impressed    l>y  the   danger  he   had   incurred   by   denouncing  the 

1  After  the  word  "  plainly"  in  the  first  paragraph,  the  words  "the  only 
courv: "  had  been  written  and  crossed  through. 


"  The  Timss  "  on  "  Parnellism  and  Crime."  33  l 

assassinations,  as  to  have  applied  for  the  protection  of  the  police 
on  the  plea  that  his  life  was  in  peril. 

"  Mr  Parnell  in  his  letter  describes  Lord  F.  Cavendish's  death 
as  an  'accident,'  but  he  'cannot  refuse  to  admit  that  Burke  got  no 
more  than  his  deserts.'  That  is  his  language  to  the  '  Inner  Circle' ; 
but  before  Parliament,  yielding  to  what  he  considered  '  the  only 
course,'  or,  as  it  stands  amended  in  the  text,  '  our  best  policy,'  he 
spoke  on  Monday,  May  8th,  two  days  after  the  murders,  as 
follows  : — 

"'Mr  Parnell  said  he  wished  to  be  permitted  to  express,  on  the  part 
of  his  hon.  friends,  on  his  own  part,  and,  he  believed,  on  the  part  of  every 
Irishman  in  whatever  portion  of  the  world  he  might  live,  their  most  un- 
qualified detestation  of  the  horrible  crime  which  had  been  committed  in 
Ireland.  (Hear,  hear.)  He  could  not  now  refer  to  the  steps  which  the 
Government  proposed  to  take.  He  did  not  deny  that  it  might  be  impos- 
sible for  the  Government  to  resist  taking  measures  such  as  had  been 
mentioned  by  the  Prime  Minister.  But  he  wished  to  express  his  belief 
that  the  crime  had  been  committed  by  men  who  absolutely  detested  the 
cause  with  which  he  had  been  associated — (hear,  hear) — and  who  had 
devised  that  crime,  and  cairied  it  out  as  the  deadliest  blow  in  their  power 
against  the  hopes  and  the  new  course  which  the  new  Government  had 
resolved  upon.' 

"  Particular  attention  may  now  be  drawn  to  the  wicked  sug- 
gestion here  made  that  the  Phoenix  Park  murders  had  been  the 
work  of  the  enemies  of  Parnellism  and  the  League,  '  devised  and 
carried  out  as  the  deadliest  blow  in  their  power  against  the  hopes 
and  the  new  course '  which  the  Government  had  resolved  upon. 
Has  that  infamous  accusation  ever  been  excelled  or  even  equalled? 
and  to  what  benevolent  construction  of  motives  is  a  public  man 
now  entitled  who  made  such  a  charge,  at  the  very  time  when  he 
was  smoothing  down  the  'anger'  of  Egan's  'friends'  for  de- 
nouncing them  as  murderers  in  Parliament  ? 

"To  the  country  at  large  Mr  Parnell,  Mr  Dillon,  and  Mr  Davitt 
addressed  on  the  day  after  the  murder  the  following  manifesto  : — 

"  '  To  the  People  of  Ireland. — On  the  eve  of  what  seemed  a  bright 
future  for  our  country,  that  evil  destiny  which  has  apparently  pursued  us 
for  centuries  has  struck  another  blow  at  our  hopes,  which  cannot  be 
exaggerated  in  its  disastrous  consequences.  In  this  hour  of  sorrowful 
gloom  we  venture  to  give  an  expression  of  our  profoundest  sympathy  with 
the  people  of  Ireland  in  the  calamity  that  has  befallen  our  cause,  through 
a  horrible  deed,  and  to  those  who  had  determined  at  the  last  hour  that  a 
policy  of  conciliation  should  supplant  that  of  terrorism  and  national  dis- 
trust.    We  earnestly  hope  that  the  atdtude  and  action  of  the  whole  Irish 


JJ 


2    Modem  Political  Orations — Appendix. 


people  will  show  the  world  that  assassination,  such  as  has  startled  us 
almost  to  the  abandonment  of  hope  for  our  country's  future,  is  deeply  and 
religiously  abhorrent  to  their  every  feeling  and  instinct.  We  appeal  to  you 
to  show  by  every  manner  of  expression  that  almost  universal  feeling  of 
horror  which  this  assassination  has  excited.  No  people  feels  so  intense  a 
detestation  of  its  atrocity,  or  so  deep  a  sympathy  for  those  whose  hearts 
must  be  seared  by  it,  as  the  nation  upon  whose  prospects  and  reviving 
hopes  it  may  entail  consequences  more  ruinous  than  have  fallen  to  the  lot 
of  unhappy  Ireland  during  the  present  generation.  We  feel  that  no  act 
has  ever  been  perpetrated  in  our  country  during  the  exciting  struggles  for 
social  and  political  rights  of  the  past  fifty  years  that  has  so  stained  the 
name  of  hospitable  Ireland  as  this  cowardly  and  unprovoked  assassination 
of  a  friendly  stranger;  and  that  until  the  murderers  of  Lord  Frederick 
Cavendish  and  Mr  LSiuke  are  brought  to  justice,  that  stain  will  sully  our 

country's  name. 

I  Charles  S.  Parnell. 
"'(Signed)  \  John  Dillon. 

\  Michael  Davitt.' 

"  Here,  again,  the  peculiar  language  employed  will  be  noted. 
It  is  'the  evil  destiny  which  has  apparently  pursued  us  for  cen- 
turies,' which  '  has  struck  another  blow  at  our  hopes,'  etc. 

"Only  a  fortnight  ago,  on  the  first  reading  of  the  Crimes  Bill, 
Mr  Parnell  took  occasion  to  refer  to  this  manifesto  in  the  House 
of  Commons  in  the  following  remarkable  terms  : — 

"  '  I  do  not  believe  you  would  ever  have  broken  up  that1  [the  Invincible] 
'conspiracy  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  denunciation  of  Mr  Michael  Davitt, 
the  Member  for  Kast  Mayo,  and  myself,  issued  after  the  crime  in  Phcenix 
Paik.  It  was  the  denunication  that  shook  that  conspiracy  and  enabled 
liicers  of  the  law  in  Ireland,  by  means  of  their  secret  inquiries  and 
other  agencies,  to  get  under  it,  and  finally  break  it  up.' 

"An  interval  of  more  than  half  a  year  elapsed  between  the 
Phoenix  Park  murders  and  the  discovery  of  the  perpetrators.  In 
that  interval,  while  the  'stain  on  the  name  of  hospitable  Ireland,' 
in  spite  of  'the  appeal'  made  in  the  manifesto,  still  adhered  to  it, 
Ireland's  uncrowned  king1  actually  addressed  to  his  trusted  sub- 
ordinate, the  Treasurer  of  the  Land  League,  the  following  extra- 
ordinary letter,  which  tells  it  own  talc. 

"  In  the  facsimile,  which  we  place  before  our  readers,  the  paper 
ies  open,  the  first  page  being  to  the  right  and  the  fourth  to 
the  left." 


Mr  Parnell,  by  the  way,  was  not  the  only  Irishman  invested  with  the 
'The    Uncrowned    King."      It    had    been    borne    by    Daniel 

11. 


"  The  Times"  on  "  Pamellism  and  Crime"  333 

Subjoined  is  The  Times'  leader  in  the  same  issue  of  the  paper  : — 
"We  place  before  our  readers  to-day  a  document,  the  grave 
importance  of  which  it  would  be  difficult  to  over-estimate.  It  is 
a  facsimile  of  a  letter  from  Mr  Parnell,  written  a  week  after 
the  Phoenix  Park  murders,  excusing  his  public  condemnation  of 
the  crime,  and  distinctly  condoning,  if  not  approving,  the  murder 
of  Mr  Burke.  It  needs  no  further  words  to  recommend  this 
document  to  the  serious  consideration  of  the  public,  and  especially 
of  Members  of  the  House  of  Commons.  At  the  close  of  to-night's 
sitting — if  the  arrangements  made  by  the  Whips  hold  good — the 
division  will  be  taken  in  the  House  on  the  second  reading  of  the 
Crimes  Bill.  That  the  amendment  moved  at  Mr  GLADSTONE'S 
instance,  and  in  the  interests  of  his  Parnellite  allies,  will  be 
defeated  by  a  great  majority  is  beyond  doubt.  There  is,  how- 
ever, a  preliminary  question  of  great  significance  to  be  settled. 
No  greater  danger  has  ever  threatened  public  life  in  England  than 
the  'demoralisation  in  politics,'  against  which  Mr  GOSCHEN  in 
his  speech  on  Saturday,  at  Edinburgh,  abjured  all  honest  men 
to  make  a  stand.  The  disgraceful  scene,  for  which  Colonel 
Saunderson'S  statements  on  Friday  might  furnish  a  pretext,  cannot 
be  allowed  to  pass  without  further  explanation.  It  is  bad  enough 
that  the  House  of  Commons  should  be  degraded  by  the  use  of 
language  which  would  not  be  permitted  in  any  decently  conducted 
music-hall,  but  that  is  a  matter  which  must  be  left  in  the  hands 
of  Members  themselves  until  the  time  comes  when  the  country 
will  have  to  pass  judgment  upon  the  offenders,  and  those  who 
instigate  and  encourage  them.  Something  more  serious  than  a 
question  of  Parliamentary  manners  is  involved  in  the  charges 
brought  by  COLONEL  Saunderson  against  the  principal  members 
of  Mr  Parnell's  party,  and  met  by  Mr  Healy  and  Mr  Sexton, 
not  with  any  attempt  at  disproof,  but  with  the  lie  direct.  Mr 
Healy's  breach  of  orders  was  punished  by  suspension  from  the 
service  of  the  House,  but  the  decision  will  be  challenged  to-day 
on  the  motion  of  his  fellow-offender,  Mr  Sexton.  As  for  Mr 
Sexton  himself,  he  escaped  punishment  because  COLONEL 
Saunderson  had  placed  himself — technically  at  least — in  the 
wrong  by  one  or  two  inaccuracies  in  his  citations  from  the 
evidence  collected  in  our  articles  on  '  Parnellism  and  Crime.' 
Those  inaccuracies,  however,  do  not  in  the  smallest  degree 
affect    the   cumulative  force   of   the   evidence    in    question.     Mr 


534    Modern  Political  Orations — Appendix. 

HEALY  and  Mr  Sexton  fastened  upon  the  possibly  indiscreet 
statement  that  members  of  Mr  Parnell's  party  'had  been 
associating  with  men  they  knew  to  be  murderers.'  It  is  im- 
possible to  prove  that  the  Parliamentary  Members  of  the 
alive  Committee  of  the  Land  League,  in  the  historic  days 
when  Mr  GLADSTONE  denounced  the  crime  that  dogged  its  foot- 
steps, and  when  Mr  Parnell  and  Mr  Sexton  sat  in  secret 
council  with  Egan,  Brennan,  Boyton,  and  Sheridan,  were 
aware  of  the  character  of  their  associates.  As  Mr  Arnold- 
Forster  in  his  letter  to  us  to-day  observes,  'There  is  no  proof; 
there  is  only  presumption.'  On  this  point  every  man  must  form 
his  opinion  for  himself,  giving  such  weight  as  he  may  think  proper 
to  Mr  Sexton's  'passionate'  denials,  and  arriving  at  a  judgment 
according  to  the  reasonable  probabilities  of  the  case.  It  is  not 
wise  to  state  a  probability,  however  overwhelming  its  strength  may 
appear,  as  a  fact.  But,  after  all,  the  allegation,  which  COLONEL 
Saunderson  withdrew  as  far  as  the  proceedings  of  the  Executive 
Committee  of  the  League  were  concerned,  remains  strictly  true 
with  respect  to  the  subsequent  conduct  of  Mr  Parnell's  party 
as  a  body,  and  of  the  principal  members  of  it  individually. 

"  We  have  publicly  stated,  and  we  repeat  the  statement,  that  the 
present  allies  of  the  Gladstonians — the  men  whom  Mr  Gladstone 
and  his  colleagues  are  assisting  to  paralyse  law  and  to  render 
government  impossible  in  Ireland — have  been,  and  are,  associated 
closely  and  continuously  with  the  worst  of  criminals,  with  the 
agents  and  instruments  of  murder-conspiracies,  with  the  planners 
and  paymasters  of  cowardly  and  inhuman  outrage,  with  the 
preachers  of  the  '  Gospel  of  Dynamite,'  who  are  at  the  same  time 
the  financiers  that  furnish  the  funds  on  which  the  '  Parliamentary 
I'aity'  subsist.  These  charges  have  been  for  weeks  before  the 
country.  They  are  protected  by  no  privilege  of  Parliament  or 
other  artificial  shelter,  and  it  is  open  to  those  persons  who  are  so 
indignant  at  their  repetition  in  the  House  of  Commons  that  they 
cannot  observe  the  common  decencies  of  civilised  speech,  to  refute 
them  if  they  can,  and  recover  damages  in  a  Court  of  Law.  Yet 
neither  Mr  PARNELL  himself,  nor  any  one  of  his  subordinates,  has 
taken  a  single  step  to  prove  that  they  have  been  maligned  in  the 
extracts  we  have  published  from  The  Irish  World.  While  Mr  IIealy, 
speaking  to  a  Sheffield  audience,  demands  to  be  placed  on  his  trial 
at  the  Old  Bailey  for  a  crime  of  which  he  has  never  been  accused, 


"  The  Times"  on  " Parnellism  and  Crime."  335 

he  and  his  colleagues  in  the  House  of  Commons  leave  the  real,  the 
crushing  charge  against  them  unanswered,  or  answered  only  with 
brutal  insult,  unsupported  by  any  evidence  except  that  of  their 
word.  In  the  whole  body  of  testimony  we  have  published,  only 
one  insignificant  error  has  been  detected,  turning  upon  a  mistaken 
identification  of  Mr  T.  P.  O'Connor,  M.P.,  with  another  person 
bearing  the  same  surname  and  having  the  same  initials.  The  rest 
of  the  story  is  told,  as  far  as  the  facts  are  concerned,  in  the  columns 
of  Ford's  newspaper — the  organ  of  the  dynamite  party,  and  the 
channel  through  which,  as  Davitt  has  gratefully  testified, 
enormous  sums  of  money  have  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  League. 
From  this  trustworthy  source  we  learn  that  Mr  Parnell'S  party 
have  been  associated,  not  only  before,  but  since  the  detection  of 
the  Phcenix  Park  murderers  and  the  disclosure  of  the  origin  of  the 
'Invincible'  conspiracy  with  Ford  himself,  who  'stands  by  all  he 
has  ever  said  on  this  doctrine  of  dynamite '  with  EGAN,  who  hinted 
to  the  '  Invincibles'  that  'talk'  would  never  get  the  suspects  out  of 
Kilmainham,  with  SHERIDAN,  BRENNAN,  Walsh,  BOYTON,  and 
Byrne,  all  implicated  by  Casey's  evidence,  all  fugutives  to  the 
United  States,  and  all  conspicuous  members  up  to  that  time  of  the 
staff  of  Mr  Parnell'S  constitutional  agitation.  These  men,  to- 
gether with  O'Donovan  Rossa,  Finnerty,  Feely,  Devoy,  and 
other  advocates  of  '  physical  force '  in  its  various  forms,  Mr 
Parnell  has  always  treated  as  his  allies  for  American  purposes, 
though  he  has  occasionally  disavowed  some  of  them  on  this 
side  of  the  Atlantic  when  he  deemed  it  convenient  to  conciliate 
English  opinion.  He  has  never  rejected  their  money.  He  has 
sent  congratulatory  telegrams  to  their  conventions  ;  his  lieu- 
tenants of  high  and  low  degree,  from  Mr  T.  P.  O'Connor  and 
Mr  Justin  M'Carthy  down  to  Mr  Redmond  and  Mr  O'Brien, 
have  been  entertained  and  chaperoned  by  Egan  and  the  Fords — 
by  the  very  persons  who  presented  'that  brave  little  woman,' 
Mrs  Frank  Byrne,  with  a  well-filled  purse  at  a  banquet  com- 
memorative of  the  victory  in  the  Phcenix  Park.  Finally,  as  The 
Irish  World  shows,  the  proceedings  which  led  up  to  the  Chicago 
Convention,  and  at  which  the  Plan  of  Campaign  was  hatched, 
brought  together,  both  in  a  secret  conclave  and  on  a  public  plat- 
form, Ford  and  Egan,  Mr  Redmond,  and  Mr  Deasy,  Brennan, 
Davitt,  and  Mr  O'Brien,  Sullivan,  Kerwin,  Feely,  and 
Devoy,    of   the    Clan-na-Gael    Murder    Club,   and    Finnerty, 


,     Modem  Political  Orations — Appendix. 


described  by  Mr  PARNELL  himself  as  a  'dynamiter.'  This  con- 
federacy, the  ramifications  of  which  we  have  laid  bare,  has  now 
:en  brought  distinctly  under  the  notice  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
and  the  country  lias  a  right  to  know  whether  the  Gladstonian 
Liberals  are  going  to  content  themselves  with  a  general  denial  by 
Mr  HEALY,  Mr  SEXTON,  and  Mr  Parnell  himself,  of  facts 
attested  by  the  impartial  evidence  of  The  Irish  World. 

"The  remarkable  document  which  we  publish  to-day  has  no 
unimportant  bearing  upon  the  value  of  such  contradictions.  The 
letter  from  Mr  PARNELL,  apologising  for  the  course  which  he 
took,  as  he  explained,  under  compulsion,  when  he  denounced  the 
Phoenix  Park  assassination,  is  produced,  for  reasons  set  forth 
elsewhere,  in  facsimile.  Mr  Parnell's  statement  that  LORD 
Frederick  Cavendish's  death  was  'an  accident,'  he  'cannot 
refuse  to  admit  that  BURKE  got  no  more  than  his  deserts,'  is  too 
significantly  in  harmony  with  the  language  of  some  of  his  allies 
beyond  the  Atlantic.  In  1883,  Finnerty,  at  a  '  Martyrs'  Meeting' 
at  Chicago,  in  which  he  announced  Mr  Healy'S  return  for  Mona- 
ghan  as  'a  piece  of  good  news,'  said  : — 'As  regards  Cavendish, 
it'  [the  murder]  'was  not  premeditated  ;  as  regarded  Burke,  they 
said  nothing.  ...  He'  [Lord  F.  Cavendish]  'died  because  he  was 
in  bad  company— was  with  Thomas  H.  Burke,  the  Fouche  of 
Ireland."  But  Mr  PARNELL,  as  we  show  elsewhere,  did  not 
consider  it  prudent  to  use  this  sort  of  plain  speaking  in  the  Flouse  of 
(  ouiinons.  Not  only  did  he  express  his  detestation  for  the  crime, 
but  he  attempted  to  cast  the  infamy  of  it  upon  the  enemies  of  his 
ise,3  and  he  has  never  to  this  hour  withdrawn  the  charge. 
What,  then,  is  the  estimate  to  be  formed  of  the  value  of  disclaimers 
ami  denials,  when  we  have  before  us  proof  not  to  be  easily  rejected 
that  they  represent  no  more  than  the  convenience  of  the  moment  ? 
Sir  WILLIAM  Harcourt  finds  it  becoming  to  treat  the  grave 
charges  which  have  been  brought  against  Members  of  the  House 
of  Commons  now  associated  with  him  in  Opposition  as  '  rubbish,' 
but  the  country  will  not  share  this  newly-acquired  indifference  to 
the  contamination  of  crime.  Mr  Parnell  must  understand  the 
gravity  of  the  question  raised  by  the  accusations  we  have  formu- 
lated and  suppi  rted  with  evidence,  but  he  cannot  expect  that  his 
simple  repudiation  of  the  letter  we  publish  this  morning  will 
have  any  weight  with  public  opinion.  He  must  be  prepared  with 
•  more  solid  proofs,  if  he  is  to  annul  the  effect  of  a  disclosure 


"  The  Times"  on  " Parnellism  and  Crime."  2>Z7 

which  reduces  the  passionate  denials  with  which  his  party 
encounter  unpleasant  truths  to  even  a  lower  value  than  Mr 
Arnold-Forster  assigns  to  them." 


The  next  clay  The  Times  returned  to  the  charge  in  these 
terms :  — 

"  Mr  Parnell's  speech  on  the  second  reading  of  the  Crimes 
Bill  was  not  delivered  till  i  o'clock  in  the  morning — too  late  for 
detailed  account  on  the  passages  referring  to  the  letter  we  pub- 
lished yesterday.  Earlier  in  the  evening,  however,  Mr  Parnell 
— though  he  has  not  yet  made  any  communication  to  us — appears 
to  have  imparted  his  views  on  the  subject  to  certain  news  agencies. 
It  would  be  unfair  to  look  at  the  present  stage  for  a  complete 
statement  of  Mr  Parnell's  defence  —  beyond  the  fact,  which 
might  have  been  anticipated  even  before  Mr  Sexton  spoke, 
that  he  declares  the  letter  in  indignant  language  to  be  '  a  forgery.' 
It  is,  however,  somewhat  remarkable  that  he  has  apparently 
been  in  doubt  as  to  the  grounds  on  which  he  is  to  impeach  the 
genuineness  and  authenticity  of  this  document.  While  repudiating 
the  body  of  the  letter,  it  was  open  to  him  either  to  deny  or  to 
acknowledge  the  signature.  At  first  he  was,  as  it  seems,  disposed 
to  acknowledge  it,  assuming  that  it  was  an  autograph,  or  possibly 
a  signature,  for  the  use  of  his  private  secretary,  which  might 
have  fallen  in  blank  into  some  unscrupulous  hands.  But  a 
different  theory  is  put  forward  in  the  latest  version  of  Mr 
Parnell's  views.  He  now  asserts  that  the  signature  is 
not  his,  and  he  points  out  various  discrepancies,  as  they  appear 
to  him,  between  the  signature  reproduced  in  our  issue  of  yesterday 
and  his  usual  signatures.  Such  discrepancies  in  small  points, 
if  they  can  be  shown  to  exist,  prove  extremely  little.  They 
constantly  occur,  even  in  the  case  of  persons  whose  handwriting 
does  not  materially  vary.  We  have  in  our  possession  several 
undoubted  examples  of  Mr  Parnell's  signature,  with  which  that 
of  the  letter  has  been  carefully  compared,  and  we  repeat  that, 
in  our  deliberate  judgment,  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  latter.  We  do  not  know  whether  Mr  Parnell  has 
made  up  his  mind  to  adopt  the  attitude  recommended  by  Mr 
Sexton,  and  to  retuse,  even  after  Lord  Hartington's  pointed 
challenge,  to  attempt  to  vindicate  his   character  in   a   Court   of 

Y 


-  3  8    Modem  Political  Orations — Appendix. 

Law.  To  denounce  this  letter  as  a  'villainous  and  barefaced 
rv,"  concocted  with  the  object  of  influencing  the  division 
and  of  calumniating  Mr  Parnell,  is  easy,  but  inadequate  to 
the  occasion.  We  pay  no  attention  whatever  to  Mr  Parnell'S 
big  words  ;  and  if  he  should  proceed  to  apply  the  only  test  by 
which  the  truth  can  be  plainly  brought  before  the  world,  we  are 
quite  prepared  to  meet  him.  Disclaimers,  of  which  the  value 
was  discounted  in  LORD  Hartington'S  weighty  speech,  are  not 
strengthened  by  violence  of  language,  nor  is  the  assumption— 
that  the  public  will  look  upon  Mr  Parnell'S  letter  as  out- 
ously  improbable — safe  ground  on  which  to  rest  the  defence 
of  a  party  associated  with  English  public  men.  We  deeply  regret 
that  Mr  Gladstone,  as  the  Chief  Secretary  observed  in  his 
reply,  joined  in  the  conspiracy .  of  silence  which  has  at  last  been 
practically  broken  through.  The  Leader  of  the  Opposition  can- 
not afford  to  ignore  grave  accusations  affecting  politicians  whom 
he  has  enlisted  among  his  followers,  and  to  whom  he  would  hand 
over  the  government  of  the  land.  Lord  Spencer's  testimony  to 
a  negative  which  he  cannot  possibly  have  had  the  means  of 
proving,  or  even  of  conjecturing,  his  exculpation,  gloried  in  by  Mr 
Sexton,  of  those  who  for  years  pursued  him  with  atrocious  and 
abominable  slanders,  is  a  pitiable  example  of  the  lengths  to  which 
party  spirit  will  carry  a  man  of  honour.  The  public  will  certainly 
not  dismiss  the  statements  affecting  Mr  Parnell  as  incredible 
when  they  see  that  Gladstonians,  not  wanting  in  good  sense  or 
good  feeling,  are  capable  of  expressing  such  sentiments  as  those 
of  our  correspondent, 'Not  a  Transcendentalism'  1  From  this 
frame  of  mind  to  Mr  Labouchere'S,  when  he  appeals  to  the 
Secret  Societies  against  the  judgment  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
the  distance  is  not  great." 


1  "  T<>  THE  Editor  of  The  Tivies. — Sir, — If  a  man  has  the  power  of 
imprisoning  any  person  whom  he  suspects  of  what  he  may  please  to  call 
'  ;  if,  exercising  that  power,  he  imprisons  the  leader 
of  the  Opposition  and  some  hundreds  of  others,  and  keeps  them  to  plank 
bed  and  prison  fare  for  seven  months;  and  if  after  that  time  he  is 
murdered,  is  it  a  matter  of  serious  wonder  or  condemnation  that  one  of  the 
just  liberated  from  prison  should  admit  that  the  murdered  man  'had 
got  no  more  than  its'?     Does  such  an  expression  of  opinion  mark 

the    man   who   uses   it   in   a   confidential  letter  as  standing  in  '  a  category 
apart  from  any   who  have  ever  sat  in  the  House  of  Commons'?     Some 


"The  Times"  on  "  Parnellism  and  Crime ."  339 

That  Mr  Parnell  did  take  advantage  of  the  Courts  of  Law 
to  vindicate  his  character  is  a  matter  of  history.  Nearly  two 
years  afterwards,  viz.  on  28th  February  1889,  in  the  same  issue  as 
that  which  contained  the  report  of  the  57th  sitting  of  the  Parnell 
Commission,  The  Times  published  the  following  leader  : — 

"  When  the  special  Commission  met  yesterday,  the  ATTORNEY- 
General  made  the  following  statement  on  behalf  of  The  Times, 
which  we  feel  it  right  to  reproduce  in  full  :— '  I  need  scarcely  assure 
your  Lordships  that  since  the  adjournment  yesterday  my  learned 
friends  and  I  have  communicated  with  those  whom  we  represent, 
and  have,  in  conjunction  with  them,  most  carefully  and  anxiously 
considered  the  course  which  it  is  our  duty  to  take  in  relation  to 
that  portion  of  this  inquiry  which  has  lately  been  under  your  Lord- 
ships' consideration.  My  Lords,  it  is  unnecessary  to  remind  you 
that  the  letters  put  in  evidence  purporting  to  be  signed  by  Mr 
Parnell,  the  authenticity  of  which  is  disputed,  including  the  letter 
of  the  15th  of  May  1882— also  those  which  purport  to  bear  the 
signatures  of  Mr  O'Kelly,  Mr  Davitt,  and  Patrick  Egan— all 
came  into  the  hands  of  the  managers  of  The  Times  from  one 
source,  from  one  man — Richard  Pigott.  I  desire  to  say  nothing 
respecting  that  witness  except  that  I  presume  everyone  will  agree 
that  no  one  ought  to  attach  any  weight  to  any  evidence  he  has 
given  ;  but,  taking  the  most  lenient  view  of  his  conduct,  he  cer- 
tainly confessed  in  his  statement  to  Mr  Shannon  that  he  forged 
some  of  these  letters,  with  the  assistance  of  the  man  from  whom 
he  received  others.  I  need  not  say,  my  Lords,  that  I  had  not 
heard  the  contents  of  the  statement  received  this  morning  until  it 
was  read  by  Mr  Cunningham.'  This  referred  to  the  text  of 
Pigott's  confession  to  Mr  Laeouchere,  which  had  been  for- 
warded by  post  to  Mr  Shannon,  had  been  handed,  with  the 
envelope  unopened,  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Commission,  and 
read  by  him  in  Court.  The  Attorney-General  proceeded  : — 
'  My  Lords,  under  these  circumstances,  it  seems  to  us  that  the  course 
we  ought  to  take  is  clearly  defined  ;  and,  believing  that  we  are 
merely  doing  our  duty,  I  now,  on  behalf  of  those  whom  we  repre- 


people,  apparently  sane  and  respectable,  say  the  same  sort  of  things  now  of 
Mr  Gladstone,  and  others  speak  in  like  manner  regarding  Mr"  Balfour. 
You  seera  to  be  up  in  the  clouds. — I  am,  etc., 

"Not  a  Transcendentalism" 


p    Modern  Political  Orations — Appendix. 

sent,  ask  permission  to  withdraw  from  your  consideration  the 
question  of  the  genuineness  of  the  letters  which  have  been  submitted 
to  you,  the  authenticity  of  which  is  denied,  with  the  full  acknow- 

ment  that,  after  the  evidence  which  has  been  given,  we  are 
not  entitled  to  say  that  they  are  genuine.  My  Lords,  although  it 
is  possible  that  any  expression  of  regret  used  by  me  in  making  this 
statement  may  be  misinterpreted,  those  whom  I  represent  request 
me  to  express  their  sincere  regret  that  these  letters  were  published. 
That  feeling,  which  most  truly  exists,  will,  at  the  proper  time,  be 
more  fully  expressed  by  themselves.  If  I  were  entitled  to  do  so,  I 
could  say  much  as  to  the  manner  in  which  those  whom  I  represent 
have  been  imposed  upon,  but  I  desire,  in  making  this  statement,  to 
abstain  from  introducing  any  controversial  matter  ;  but  I  claim, 
with  your  Lordships'  permission,  to  state  that  some  words  used  by 
my  learned  friend  Sir  Charles  Russell  yesterday  did  not  escape 
our  attention.  My  learned  friend  said  that  behind  PlGOTT  there 
had  been  a  foul  conspiracy.  I  desire  emphatically  to  say  that,  if  a 
foul  conspiracy  has  existed,  those  whom  we  represent  have  had  no 
share  whatever  in  it.  That  they  have  been  misled  and  imposed 
upon  is  true,  but  therein  lies  their  fault,  and  if  it  be  suggested  that 
their  error  extends  beyond  this  fault,  they  earnestly  ask  that  your 
Lordships  will  make  the  fullest  inquiry  into  any  part  they  have 
taken,  either  in  procuring  these  documents  or  in  placing  them 
before  the  public' 

"  We  desire  to  endorse  and  to  appropriate  every  word  of  the 
foregoing  statement.  It  is  our  wish,  as  it  is  our  duty,  to  give  ex- 
pression to  that  feeling  of  sincere  regret  to  which  the  Attorney- 
GENERAL  referred.  It  was  obvious  that,  after  PlGOTT,  on  his  own 
showing,  had  proved  himself  to  be  a  person  utterly  unworthy  of 
credit,  and  after  he  had  made  two  confessions,  varying  in  detail, 
but  both  admitting  that  the  letters  which  he  had  produced  were 
tainted  with  forgery,  our  duty  was  unreservedly  to  withdraw  these 

rs  from  the  consideration  of  the  Judges.  Moreover,  Mr 
PARNELL  having  in  the  witness-box  stated  that  the  letters  at- 
tributed to  him  were  forgeries,  we  accept  in  every  respect  the  truth 
of  that  statement.  In  these  circumstances  we  deem  it  right  to 
express  our  regret  most  fully  and  sincerely  at  having  been  induced 
to  publish  the  letters  in  question  as  Mr  Parnell'S,  or  to  use  them 
in  evident  e  against  him.  This  expression  of  regret,  we  need  hardly 
Bay,  includes  also  the  letters  lalsely  attributed  to  Mr  Egan,  Mr 


li 


The  Tiines"  on  " Pamellism and  Crime."  341 


Davitt,  and  Mr  O'Kelly.  It  is  clear  now  that  Pigott  was  guilty 
of  a  gross  and  disgraceful  fraud  when  he  produced  the  documents 
which  reached  our  hands.  Into  the  circumstances  under  which  we 
received  and  published  them  it  is  scarcely  fitting  we  should  enter. 
Nor  shall  we  now  refer  to  the  grounds,  apart  from  PlGOTT'S  testi- 
mony, on  which  we  considered  ourselves  to  be  justified  in  dealing 
with  these  letters  as  genuine  documents.  To  do  so  would  be  to 
touch  upon  controversial  matter  which  cannot  for  the  present  be 
properly  dealt  with  in  these  columns.  We  are  bound,  however,  to 
point  out  that  though  PlGOTT  was  the  source  from  which  the  letters 
came,  and  though  they  were  thus  contaminated  by  their  origin,  he 
was  not  the  person  with  whom  we  communicated,  and  who  placed 
the  documents  in  our  hands.  Moreover,  we  must  add  that  we 
firmly  believed  the  letters  to  be  genuine,  until  the  disclosures  made 
by  PlGOTT  in  the  course  of  his  cross-examination. 

"We  heard  on  Tuesday  of  'a  conspiracy  behind  PlGOTT  and 
HOUSTON,'  but  it  must  be  evident  to  all  reasonable  persons  that,  if 
a  conspiracy  existed,  The  Times  was  victimised  by  it  and  not  a 
party  to  it.  Errors  in  judgment  may  have  been  committed,  and  for 
them  the  penalty  must  be  paid.  What  we  have  done,  it  must  be 
clearly  understood,  has  been  done  by  us  in  the  public  interest  alone. 
It  has  been  done,  moreover,  altogether  of  our  own  motion  and  upon 
our  own  responsibility.  We  regarded  the  undertaking  on  which  we 
entered  as  one  of  national  importance,  but  we  must  enter  an  em- 
phatic protest  against  attempts  to  make  any  statesman  or  any 
political  party  conjointly  responsible  with  us  for  acts  which  were  ex- 
clusively our  own.  We  may  point  out,  further,  that  it  is  absurd  to  take 
us  to  task  for  not  having  at  once  abandoned  the  portion  of  the  case  de- 
pendent upon  the  letters  at  an  earlier  stage  of  PlGOTT'S  examination. 
We  were  responsibly  advised  that  it  was  not  within  our  right  or 
power  to  express  any  opinion  on  the  evidence  of  a  witness  still 
under  examination,  and  could  not  offer  any  view  of  our  own  until 
that  witness's  cross-examination  was  concluded.  As  soon  as  the 
incidents  affecting  PlGOTT'S  flight  had  been  inquired  into,  our 
counsel  at  once  asked  for  an  adjournment,  for  the  purpose  of  con- 
sidering the  most  proper  form  in  which  to  present  our  withdrawal 
of  the  letters  from  the  consideration  of  the  Commission.  This 
withdrawal  of  course  refers  exclusively  to  the  letters  obtained  from 
PlGOTT,  and  not  to  the  other  portion  of  the  case  embraced  in  the 
'charges  and  allegations,'  which  still  remain  the  subject  of  judicial 


"42    Modern  Political  Orations — Appendix. 

inquiry.  Our  desire  is  simply  to  express  deep  regret  for  the  error 
into  which  we  were  led,  and  to  withdraw  unreservedly  those  parts 
of  our  original  statements  which  we  cannot  honestly  continue  to 
maintain." 

How  Richard  Pigott  fled  to  Madrid,  and  there  shot  himself,  to 
escape  being  taken  by  the  emissaries  of  the  law  ;  and  how,  in  the 
"last  scene  of  all "  in  the  tedious  drama  of  the  Pamell  Commission, 
Mr  Parnell  was  awarded  the  sum  of  £5000  damages  from  the 
proprietors  of  The  Times,  are  facts  known  to  everyone. 


Original  Sources  of  the  Speeches.  343 


II. 

ORIGINAL  SOURCES  OF  THE  SPEECHES. 

Lord  Brougham  on  Negro  Emancipation  .  .  .  Hansard 
T.  B.  Macaulay  on  the  People's  Charter         ...  „ 

W.  J.  Fox  on  the  Corn  Laws  .  ...  The  Times. 

Daniel  O'Connell  on  Repeal  of  the  Union,  The  Morning  Chronicle. 
R.  L.  Sheil  on  the  Jewish  Disabilities  Bill  .  .  .  Hansard. 
Alexander  Cockburn  on  the  Greek  Difficulty         .        .  „ 

Sir  Edward  Bulwer  Lytton  on  the  Crimean  War  .        .  }, 

The  Earl  of  Ellenborough  on  the  Polish  Insurrection   .  „ 

John  Bright  on  Suspension  ot  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act .  „ 

The  Rt.  Hon.  Robert  Lowe  on  Parliamentary  Reform — 

From  "  The  Speeches  of  the  Rt.  Hon.  Robert  Lowe"  by  permission  of  the 
Viscountess  Sherbrooke,  and  A.  Ratchet t  Martin,  Esq.,  Author  of 
"  The  Life  and  Letters  of  Viscount  SJterbrooke." 

The  Rt.  Hon.  Gathorne  Hardy  on  the  Irish  Church  .  Hansard. 
Earl  Russell  on  the  Ballot                       ....  „ 

Isaac  Butt  on  Home  Rule „ 

A.  M.  Sullivan  on  the  Irish  National  Demands — 

From  "Speeches  and  Addresses  by  A.  M.  Sullivan,  M.P."  {Office  of 
"  The  Nation"),  by  permission  ofT.D.  Sullivan,  Esq.,  M.P.,  formerly 
Editor  of  "  The  Nation" 


?  44     Modern  Political  Orations — Appendix. 

The  Earl  of  Beaconsfield  on  the  Berlin  Congress  .        .  T/ie  Times. 

Joseph  Cowen  on  The  Foreign  Policy  of  England— 

The  Newcastle  Daily  Chronicle. 

Reprinted  and  Revised  Copy  kindly  supplied  by  Joseph  Cowen,  Esq.,  M.P. 

The  Rt  Hon.  W.  E.  Gladstone  on  the  Beaconsfield 

Ministry The  Times. 

Charles  Bradlaugh  at  the  Bar  of  the  House  of  Commons— 

From  "T/te  Speeches  0/ Charles  Bradlaugh,  M.P."  by  permission  of 
Mrs  Bradlaugh  Bonner. 

Justin  McCarthy  in  Defence  of  his  Colleagues  .  .  Hansard. 
Lord  Randolph  Churchill  on  the  Egyptian  Crisis  .  .  The  Times. 
The  Rt.  Hon.  Joseph  Chamberlain  on  Liberal  Aims     .         „ 

C.  S.  Parnell  on  the  Coercion  Bill Hansard. 

The  Rt  Hon.  John  Morley  on  Home  Rule  .  .  .  The  Times. 
Richard  Cobden  on  the  Corn  Laws        .        .        .        .     Hansard. 


September  1896 

COMPLETE  LIST 

OF 

HENRY   HOLT   &   CO.'S 

EDUCATIONAL  PUBLICATIONS. 

All  prices  are  NET  except  those  marked  with  an  asterisk  (*),  which  are  RETAIL. 
All  books  bound  in  cloth,  unless  otherwise  indicated. 


SCIENCE.  CATALOGUE 

TRICE  PAGE 

Allen's  Laboratory  Physics,  Pupil's  Edition $     80  2 

The  same,  Teacher's  Edition   100  2 

Arthur,  Barnes,  and  Coulter's  Plant  Dissection 120  3 

Barker's  Physics,  A  dvanced  Course 3  50  4 

Beal's  Grasses  of  North  America.     2  vols 5 

Bessey 's  Botany,  Advanced  Course ...       2  20  6 

The  same,  Briefer  Course  1  12  6 

Black  and  Carter's  Natural  History  Lessons 50  8 

Bumpus's  Laboratory  Manual  of  Invertebrate  Zoology   1  00  8 

Cairns's  Quantitative  Analysis   2  00  9 

Crozier's  Dictionary  of  Botanical  Terms 2  40  9 

Hackel's  True  Grasses  (Scribner)    *i  50  9 

Hall  and  Bergen's  Physics  (Key,  50  cts.) 125  10 

Hall's  First  Lessons  in  Physics 65  11 

Hertwig's  General  Principles  of  Zoology 160  12 

Howell's  Dissection  of  the  Dog 1  00  12 

Jackman's  Nature  Study 1  20  13 

Kerner's  Natural  History  of  Plants.  With  16  colored  plates,  iooocuts.  4Pts.is  00  14 

Mac  Doug  al's  Experimental  Plant  Physiology 1  00  15 

Macloskie's  Elementary  Botany 1  30  15 

McMurrich's  Invertebrate  Morphology.     New  Edition 300  16 

Martin's  The  Human  Body,  Advanced  Course.     New  Edition   ..    250  17 

The  same,  Briefer  Course 1  20  17 

The  same.  Elementary  Course 75  19 

The  Human  Body  and  the  Effects  of  Narcotics 1  20  18 

Newcomb  and  Holden's  Astronomy,  ^(("z'SKcurfCwrw 200  20 

The  same.  Briefer  Course 1  12  20 

Noyes's  <W.  A.)  Elements  of  Qualitative  Analysis 80  21 

Packard's  Zoology,  Advanced  Course 240  22 

The  same,  Briefer  Course 1   12  22 

The  same,  Elementary  Course 80  23 

Entomology  for  Beginners 140  24 

Guide  to  the  Study  of  Insects *5  00  24 

Embryology *2  50  24 

Perkins's  Outlines  of   Electricity  and  Magnetism 25 

Pierce's  Problems  in  Elementary  Physics   ..         60  25 

Price's  Fern  Collector's  Handbook  and  Herbarium 

Remsen's  Chemistry,  Advanced  Course 280  26 

The  same,  Briefer  Course 1  12  26 

The  same,  Elementary  Course  80  28 

Laboratory  Manual  (for  Elementary  Course) 40  29 

Remsen  and  Randall's  Chemical  Experiments  (for  Briefer  Course) 50  29 

Sc udder's  Butterflies *i  50  30 

Brief  Guide  to  Commoner  Butterflies *i  23  30 

Life  of  a  Butterfly *i  00  30 

Sedgwick  and  Wilson's  General  Biology,  New  Edition .     1  75  31 

Unuerwood's  Native  Ferns 100  32 


Henry  Holt  &  Co.'s  Educational  Publications 


CATALOGUE 
PRICE   PAGE 

Williams's  (G    H.)  Elements  of  Crystallography $i  25  32 

Williams's  iH.  S.t  Geological  Biology 280  33 

Woodhull's  First  Course  in  Science:   Book  of  Experiments 50  34 

Text-book 65  34 

Zimmermann's  Botanical  Microtechnique 2  50  35 

MATHEMATICS. 

Gillet's  Elementary  Algebra 1  35  36 

Euclidean  Geometry   1  25  37 

Keig win's  Class-book  of  Geometry 37 

Newcomb's  School  Algebra  I  Key,  95  cts.) 95  38 

Algebra  for  Colleges  (Key,  $1.30). 1  3°  38 

Elements  of  Geometry 1  20  38 

Elements  of  Trigonometry,  Plane  and  Spherical 1  60  39 

Trigonometry,  separate   120  39 

Mathematical  Tables   1  10  39 

Essentials  of  Trigonometry 100  39 

Plane  Geometry  and  Trigonometry 1  10  39 

Analytic  Geometry 120  40 

Differential  and  Integral  Calculus 150  40 

Phillips  and  Beebe's  Graphic  Algebra 1  60  40 

HISTORY   AND    POLITICAL    SCIENCE. 

Doyle's  History  of  the  United  States 100  45 

Duruy's  Middle  Ages 1  60  41 

Modern  Times  to  1798 160  42 

Fleury's  Ancient  History  told  to  Children 70  43 

Freeman's  General  Sketch  of  History 1   10  44 

Fyffe's  History  of  Modern  Europe  :   Volume  I.  1792-1814 *2  50  46 

Volume  U    1814-1848 *2  50  46 

Volume  III.  1848-1S78 *2  50  46 

The  same.     Three  volumes  in  one  275  46 

udet's  Manual  of  International  Law 130  46 

Gardiner's  English  History  for  Schools 80  47 

Introduction  to  English  History   80  47 

Gardiner  and  Mullinger's  English  History  for  Students 180  47 

Hunt's  History  of  Italy 80  45 

Johnston's  American  Politics   80  51 

History  of  the  United  Slates 1  00  48 

Shorter  History  of  the  United  States 95  50 

Lacombe's  Growth  of  a  People 80  52 

Mac  Arthur's  History  of  Scotland 80  45 

Porter's  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States 1  20  52 

Roscher's  Principles  of  Political  Economy.    2  vols *7  00  52 

Sime's  History  of  Germany 80  45 

Sumner's  Problems  in  Political  Economy 1  00  52 

Symonds's  R<  naissance *i  75  52 

Thompson's  1 1 isiory  of  England 88  44 

Walker's  Political  Economy,  Advanced  Course 200  53 

The  same,  Briefer  Course 120  54 

The  same  Elementary  Course 1  00  54 

Yonge's  History  of  France 80  45 

Landmarks  of  History  :   Ancient  History 75  56 

Mediaeval  History 80  56 

Modern  History 105  56 

PHILOSOPHY. 

Baldwin's  Psychology.    Vol.1.  Senses  and  Intellect 180  57 

Vol.11.  Feeling  and  Will 200  58 

Elements  of  Psychology 1  50  59 

artes,  Philosophy  of  (Torrey)          1  50  64 

F  alckenberg'a  History  ol  Modern  Philosophy 3  50  60 

Hume,  Philosophy  of  (Aikins) 100  65 

ii 


Henry  Holt  &-  Co.'s  Educational  Publications 


CATALOGUE 

PRICE  PAGE 

Hyde's  Practical  Ethics $    80  61 

James's  Psychology.     Advanced  Course.     2  vols 480  62 

The  same.      Briefer  Course  1  60  63 

Kant.  Philosophy  of  (Watson) 1  75  65 

Locke,  Philosophy  of  (Russell) 100  65 

Paulsen's  Introduction  to  Philosophy  (Thilly)   3  5°  65 

Reid,  Philosophy  of  (Sneath) -  5°  65 

Spinoza,  Philosophy  of  (Fullerton) 150  65 

Zeller's  History  of  Greek  Philosophy 140  66 

MISCELLANEOUS.    (In  English.) 

Banister's  Music 80  67 

Champlin's  Cyclopaedia  of  Common  Things.     Cloth *2  50  68 

The  same.     Half  Leather *3  00  68 

Cyclopaedia  of  Persons  and  Places.     Cloth *2  50  69 

The  same.     Half  Leather   *3  00  69 

Catechism  of  Common  Things 48  70 

Young  Folks' Astronomy 48  70 

Champlin  and  Bostwick's  Cyclopaedia  of  Games  and  Sports  *2  50  70 

Cox's  Catechism  of  Classic  Mythology 75  71 

Davis,  King,  and  Collie's  Governmental  Maps 30  71 

White's  Classic  Literature 160  71 

Witt's  Classic  Mythology 100  71 

ENGLISH. 

Bain's  Brief  English  Grammar  (Key,  40  cts.) 40  86 

Higher  English  Grammar. 80  86 

English  Grammar  bearing  upon  Composition 1   10  86 

Baker's  Specimens  of  Argumentation.     Modern 50  73 

Baldwin's  Specimens  of  Prose  Description 50  75 

Boswell's  Life  of  Dr.  Samuel  Johnson  (abridged) *i  50  86 

Brewster's  Specimens  of  Prose  Narration..    50  76 

Bright's  Anglo-Saxon  Reader 1  75  87 

ten  Brink's  History  of  English  Literature  :  Volume  I.  To  Wvchf '200  88 

Volume  II   ...    ..' *2  00  88 

Browning :  Selections.     (Mason.) 

Burke:  Selections.     (Perry.) 77 

Clark's  Practical  Rhetoric 100  89 

Exercises  for  Drill.     Paper  35  89 

Briefer  Practical  Rhetoric 90  90 

Art  of  Reading  Aloud 60  90 

Coleridge's  Prose  Extracts.     (Beers.) 50  77 

Cook's  Extracts  from  Anglo-Saxon  Laws.     Paper 40  90 

Corson's  Anglo-Saxon  and  Early  English 1  60  90 

De  Quincey's  English  Mail  Coach  and  Joan  of  Arc.     (Hart.) 50  78 

Ford's  The  Broken  Heart.     (Scollard.)     Buckram 70  78 

The  same.     Cloth 50  78 

Hale's  Constructive  Rhetoric im  91 

Hardy's  Elementary  Composition  Exercises 80  90 

Johnsor's  Chief  Lives  of  the  Poets.     (Arnold.) 125  91 

Rasselas.     (Emerson.)     Buckram 70  79 

The  same.     Cloth. 50  79 

Lamont's  Specimens  of  Exposition.     Cloth 50  80 

Lounsbury'o  History  of  the  English  Language 112  92 

Part  I.  with  Appendix  of  Specimens  and  Index.         90  92 

Lyly's  Endymion.     (Baker.)     Buckram 125  8i 

The  same.     Cloth 85  81 

Macaulay  and  Carlyle:  Croker's  Boswell's  Johnson  (Strunk.)     Cloth...         50  82 

Marlowe's  Edward  II.  (McLaughlin.)     Buckram 70  83 

The  same.     Cloth 50  83 

McLaughlin's  Literary  Criticism 1  00  93 

Nesbitt's  Grammar-Land *i  00  93 

Newman:     Selections.     (Gates.)     Buckram 90  83 

The  same.    Cloth 50  83 

iii 


Henry  Holt  &  Co.'s  Educational  Publications 


Pancoast's  Representative  English  Literature 

Introduction  to  English  Literature 

Sewell's  Dictation  Exercises  ■ 

Shaw's  English  Composition  by  Practice 

Siglar's  Practical  English  Grammar 

Smith's  Synonyms  Discriminated 

Taine's  History  of  English  Literature i 

The  same.  Abridged.     Class-room  Edition.     (V  lSke.) 

Tennyson's  Princess.     (Sherman.) 

GERMAN. 

Andersen's  Bilderbuch.     Vocab.    (Simonson.)     Boards ..  $ 

Die  Eisjungfrau  und  andere  Geschichten.  (Krauss.)   Boards 

Ein  Besuch  bei  Charles  Dickens.     Boards 

Stories,  with  Grimm's,  from  Bronson's  Easy  Prose.      Vocab. 
Auerbach's  Auf  Wache  with  Roquette's  Gefrorene  Kuss.  (Macdonnell). 

Boards 

Baumbach's  Frau  Holde.     (Fossler.)     Poem.     Boards 

Benedix's  Der  Dritte.     Play.     (Whitney.)     Boards..   .      

Dr.  Wespe.     Play.     Boards 

Eis;ensinn.     Play.     Boards 

Beresford  -Webb's  German  Historical  Reader 

Black  well's  German  Prefixes  and  Suffixes 

Brandt      Day's  Scientific  Reader 

Bronson's  Colloquial  German  (Key,  65  cts.) 

Easy  German  Prose.     See  also  Andersen,  Grimm,  and  Hauff    1 

Carovo's  Das  Miirchen  ohne  Ende.     Vocab.     Boards 

Chamisso's  lVlcr  Schlemihl.     (Vogel.)     Boards 

Claar's  Simson  und  Delila.     Play.     Paper 

Cohn's  Uber  Bakterien.     (Seidensticker.)     Paper 

Ebers's  Line  Frage.     Boards 

Eckstein's  Preisgekront.     (Wilson.) 

Eichendorffs  Aus  dem  Leben  eines  Taugenichts.     Boards 

Fischer's  Practical  Lessons  in  German 

Elementary  Progressive  German  Reader   

Wildermuth's  Der  Einsiedler  im  Walde 

Hillern's  HOher  als  die  Kirche 

Fouquc's  Sin  tram  und  seine  Gefahrten.     Paper 

Undine.     Vocab.     (Jagemann.) 

"  Boards 

Francke's  German  Literature 2 

Fref  tag's  Karl  der  Grosse.     (Nichols.) 

Die  Journalisten.     Play.     (Thomas.)     Boards 

Friedrich's  ( J  fin  si  :hen  von   Buchenau.     Play.     Paper 

Gerstiickcr's   Irrfahrtcn.     (Whitney.) 

Goethe's  Egmont.     iSieffen.)    Play.     Boards 

Faust.     Parti.     Play.     (Cook.) 

I  lermann  und  Dorothea.     Poem.    (Thomas.).     Boards 

Iphigenie  auf  Tauris.     Play.     (Carter) 

Gotz  von  Berlichingen.     (Goodrich  ) 

Dichtung  und  Wahrheit.     Selections,   (von  Jagemann.)  

Glirner's  Englisch.    Play.     Paper 

Gostwick  and  Harrison's  German  Literature 2 

Grimm's  Die  Venus  von  Milo;  Rafael  und  Michel-Angelo.     Boards 

Grimms' Kinder-   und  Hausmarchen.    Vocab.     (Otis.) 1 

Boards.     (Different  selections  and  notes,  no  Vocab.). . . 

Selei  tions,  with  Andersen,  from  Bronson's  Easy  Prose.     Vocab. 
Gutzkow's  Zopf  und  Schwert.     Play.     Paper 

Harris's  German  Reader 1 

Hauffs  Die  Karawane.    From  Bronson's  Easy  Prose.     Vocab 

Das  kalte  Herz,     Boards 

(Burnett.)     Boards 

Helmholtz'a  Goethe's  Arbeiten.    (Seidensticker.)    Paper 

Ma's  Kinder-KomSdien.    J'lai,-    .... 


CATALOGUE 

PRICE 

PAGE 

$1  60 

97 

I  25 

94 

45 

100 

75 
60 

99 
100 

*2  25 

100 

*I  25 

100 

I  40 

100 
85 

3° 

116 

3° 

no 

2.5 

11b 

go 

117 

35 

117 

25 

101 

20 

102 

25 

102 

25 

114 

qo 

i2g 

60 

130 

T3° 

65 

131 

25 

132 

20 

117 

25 

117 

25 

"5 

30 

118 

35 

118 

3° 

118 

3° 

ng 

75 

'34 

70 

134 

65 

134 

60 

134 

25 

no 

Ho 

119 

35 

119 

00 

'35 

75 

120 

30 

102 

35 

"5 

3° 

121 

40 

102 

48 

103 

3° 

i°3 

48 

104 

103 

120 

25 

104 

00 

'35 

40 

121 

00 

121 

40 

121 

go 

117 

40 

104 

00 

I3<> 

75 

123 

20 

122 

3° 

122 

3° 

122 

48 

lO.'i 

Henry  Holt  &■  Co.'s  Educational  Publications 


CATALOGUE 

PRICE  PAGE 

Heness's  Der  neue  Leitfaden $r  20  138 

Der  Sprechlehrer  unter  seinen  Schiilern 1   10  138 

Hey's  Fabeln  iiir  Kindor.     Vocab.     Boards 30  123 

Heyse's  Anfang  und  Ende.     Boards 25  123 

L'Arrabbiata.     (Frost.)     Vocab.     Boards 25  123 

Die  Einsamen.     Boards 2o  123 

Miidchen  von  Treppi;  Marion.     (Brusie.)     Boards 25  123 

Hillebrand's  German  Thought *i  75  138 

Hillern's  Hoher  als  die  Kirche.     Vocab.     (Whittlesey.)     Boards 25  124 

The  same.     (Fischer.) 60  134 

Huss's  Conversation  in  German 1  10  138 

Jagemann's  German  Prose  Composition 90  139 

Elements  of  German  Syntax 80  140 

Joynes-Otto:    First  Book  in  German.     Boards  30  141 

Introductory  German  Lessons 75  141 

Introductory  German  Reader   g5  141 

Translating  English  into  German  (Key,  80  cts.) 80  141 

Jungmann's  Er  sucht  emen  Vetter.     Play.     Paper 25  115 

Kaiser's  Erstes  LehrDUch 65  142 

Keetels' Oral  Method  with  German 130  142 

Klemm's  Lese-  und  Sprachbiicher.  Kreis      I.    Boards 25  143 

"        II.    Boards 30  143 

"         "     (With  Vocab.).. 35  143 

"      III.     Boards 35  143 

"      (With  Vocab.).    40  143 

"      IV.     Boards 40  143 

"        V.     Boards  45  143 

"      VI.     Boards 50  143 

"     VII.     Boards     60  143 

Geschichte  der  deutschen  Literatur  (Kreis  VIII.) 120  143 

Klenze's  Deutsche  Gedichte     90  105 

Koenigswinter's  Sie  hat  ihr  Herz  entdeckt.     Play.     Paper 35  115 

Lessing's  Emilia  Galotti.     (Super.)     Play.     Boards 30  106 

Minna  von  Barnhelm.     Play.     (Whitney.) 48  107 

Nathan  der  Weise.     Play.     tBrandt.)     New  Edition 60  107 

Meissner's  A  us  meiner  Welt.     Vocab.     (Wenckebach.) 75  124 

Moser's  Der  Schimmel.     Play.     Paper 25  115 

Der  Bibliothekar.     Play.     (Lange.)     Boards 40  107 

MUgge's  Riukan  Voss.     Paper 15  124 

Signa  die  Seterin.     Paper  20  124 

Miiller's  (E.  R.)  Elektrischen  Maschinen.     (Seidensticker.)    Paper 30  124 

Miiller's  (Max)  Deutsche  Liebe.     Boards 35  125 

Nathusius's  Tagebuch  eines  armen  Frauleins.     Paper 25  125 

Nichols's  Three   German  Tales  :     I.  Goethe's  Die    neue    Melusine.     II. 
Zschokke's   Der   tote  Gast.      III.   H.   v.    Kleist's  Dii  Ver- 

lobung  in  St.  Domingo 60  125 

Otis's  Elementary  German 80  144 

Introduction  to  Middle  High  German 1  00  145 

Otto's  German  Conversation  Grammar  (Key,  60  cts.) 1  30  146 

Elementary  Grammar  of  the  German  Language 80  147 

Progressive  German  Reader.     Half  roan  1  10  146 

Paul's  Er  muss  tanzen.     Play.     Paper 25  115 

Petersen's  Prinzessin  Use.     Boards 20  126 

Putlitz's  Was  sich  der  Wald  erzahlt.     Paper 25  126 

Vergissmeinnicht.     Paper 20  126 

Badekuren.     Play.     Paper   25  108 

Das  Herz  vergessen.     Play.     Paper 25  108 

Pylodet's  New  Guide  to  German  Conversation 50  147 

Regents' German  and  French  Poems.     Boards 20  108 

Riehl's  Burg  Neideck.     (Palmer.) 30  126 

Der  Fluch  der  Schonheit.     (Kendall.)  25  126 

Roquette's   Der  gefrorene   Kuss,  with  Auerbach's  Auf  Wacl.e.     (Mac- 

donnell.)     boards 35  127 

Rosen's  Ein  Knopf.     Play.     Paper 25  115 

Scheffel's  Kkkehard.     (Carruth.) 125  127 

Trompecer  von  Sakkingen.     Poem.     (Frost.) 80  108 

Schiller's  Die  Jungfrau  von  Orleans.    Play.    (Nichols.)    Cloth 60  no 


Henry  Holt  &  Co.'s  Educational  Publications 


CATALOGUE 

PRICE  PAGE 

Schil.er's  Die  Jungfrau  von  Orleans.    Play.    (Nichols.)    Boards $    4°  110 

Das  Lied  von  der  Glocke.     Poem.     (.Otis.)     Boards 35  "' 

Maria  Stuart.     Play    (Joynes.) 60  m 

Der  Xeffe  als  Onkel.    Play.     (Clement.)     Boards 40  "2 

Wallenstein.     Play.     (Carruth.) 100  112 

WilhelmTell.     Play.     (Sachtleben.) 48  "3 

Schoenfeld's  German  Historical  Prose »°  I27 

Schrakamp's  Sagen  und  Mythen 75  140 

Beriihmte  Deutsche 85  '49 

Erzahlungen  aus  der  deutschen  Geschichte 9°  149 

Schrakamp  and  van  Daell's  Das  deutsche  Buch 65  148 

Simonson's  German  Ballad-book J  \°  XI4 

Spanhoofd's  Das  Wesentliche  der  deutschen  Grammatik 60  150 

Sprechen  Sie  Deutsch  ?     Boards 4°  '5° 

Stern's  Studien  und  Plaudereien.     First  Scries.     New  Edition   1  10  151 

"                 "            im  Vaterland.      Second  Series 1  20  153 

Storm's  Immensee.     Vocab.     (Burnett.)     Boards |5  Iz8 

Teusler's  Game  for  German  Conversation.     Ninety-eight  Cards  in  a  Box  80  153 

Thomas's  Practical  German  Grammar •  •    •-••;•  *  I2  J54 

Three    German  Comedies:     Elz's  Er  ist  nicht  eiiersiichtig,   Benedix  s 

Der  Weiberfeind,  and   Miiller's  Im  War- 

tesalon  erster  Klasse.     Boards 3°  "4 

Tieck's  Die  Elfen  and  Das  Rothkappchen.     Boards  20  129 

Vilmar  and  Richter's  German  Epic  Tales.     Boards  35  I29 

Wenckebach  and  Schrakamp's  Deutsche  Grammatik '°°  x50 

Wenckebach's  Deutsches  Lesebuch 8o  J57 

Deutscher  Anschauungs-Unterrieht 1  IO  J58 

Die  schiinsten  deutschen  Lieder 1  2°  IX4 

Deutsche  Sprachlehre *  ,2  J58 

Whitney's  Compendious  German  Grammar  (Key,  80  cts.) 13°  J59 

Brief  German  Grammar 6°  1°° 

German  Reader  in  Prose  and  Verse '  5°  'o3 

Introductory  German  Reader J  °°  I°I 

German  and  English  Dictionary 200  163 

Whitney-Klemm:  German  by  Practice 9°  T°4 

Elementary  German  Reader 8°  l64 

Wichert's  An  der  Majorsecke.     (Harris.) 20  114 

Wilhelmi's  Einer  muss  heirathen.     Play.     Boards 25  114 

Williams's  Introduction  to  German  Conversation 8o  ,64 

Witcomb  and  Otto's  German  Conversation 5°  *47 

Zschokke's  Neujahrsnacht  and  Der  zerbrochene  Krug.     (Faust.) 25  129 


FRENCH. 

Achard's  Le  Clos  Pommier.     Paper 25  T74 

The  same  with  I  >c  Maistre's  Les  Prisonniers  du  Caucase 70  '74 

ASsop's  Fables  in  French 5°  '74 

Alliot's  I.es  Auteurs  Contemporains 120  175 

Contes  et  Nouvelles 100  191 

Aubert's  Literature  Francaise 100  175 

Colloquial  French  Drill.     Parti .  48  191 

The  same.     Part  II 65  192 

Balzac's  I.e  Cure  de  Tours,  avec  autres  contes.     (Warren.)  175 

e  Grandet.     (Bergeron.) 80  176 

Bayard  et  Lemoine's  La  Niaise  de  Saint-Flour.     Play.     Paper 20  165 

olliere's  Histoire  de  la  Mere  Michel.     Vocab 60  176 

The  same.     Paper 3°  176 

Bellows's  Dictionary  for  the  Pocket.     Roan  tuck 255  192 

The  same.     Morocco  tuck  3  10  '92 

French  and  English  Dictionary.     Larger-type  Edition 100  192 

'.laminar '93 

.   Sn/.inne.      Hoards 3°  *77 

Borei  a  Grammaire  Francaise.     Half  roan 13°  '93 

Bronson's  Exercises  in  Everyday  French.     (Key,  60  cts.) 60  194 

vi 


Henry  Holt  &  Co.'s  Educational  Publications 

CATALOGUE 

PRICE  PAGE 

Bronson's  French  Verb  Blanks $    5° 

Carraud's  Les  Gouters  de  la  Grand'mere.     Paper 20  177 

With  Sdgur's  Petites  Filles  Modeles 80  177 

Chateaubriand's  Les  Aventures  du  dernier  Abencerage.     With  extracts 
from  Atala,  Voyage  en  Ame'rique,  etc.     (Sanderson.) 

Boards 35  '77 

Choix  de  Contes  Contemporains.     (O'Connor.)     ...    100  178 

The  same.     Paper  52  178 

Clairville's  Petites  Miseres  de  la  Vie  Humaine.     Play.     Paper 20  165 

Classic   French   Plays  : 

Vol    I.   Le  Cid,  Le  Misanthrope,  Athalie 100  165 

Vol.  II.   Cinna,  L'Avare,  Esther 100  165 

Vol.  III.  Horace,  Bourgeois  Gentilhomme,  Les  Plaideurs 1  00  165 

College  Series  of  French   Plays  : 

Vol.  I.  Joie  fait  Peur,  Bataille  de  Dames,  Maison   de  Penarvan.  1  00  165 
.  Vol.  II.  Petits  Oiseaux,  Mile,  de  la  Seigli&re,  Roman  d'un  Jeune 

Homme  Pauvre,  Doigts  de  Fee 1  00  165 

CoppeVs  On  Rend  1' Argent.     (Bronson.) 60  178 

Coppee  and  De  Maupassant:  Tales.     (Cameron.)    75  >78 

Corneille's  Cid.     (Joynes.)     Play.     Boards 20  166 

Cinna.     (Joynes.)    Play.     Boards 20  166 

Horace.     (Delbos.)     Play.     Boards 20  166 

Curo's  La  Jeune  Savante,  with  Souvestre's   La  Loterie   de    Francfort. 

Plays.     Paper   20  173 

Daudet's  Contes.     Including  La  Belle  Nivernaise.     (Cameron.) 80  179 

La  Belle  Nivernaise.     (Cameron.)     Boards 25  179 

Delille's  Condensed  French  Instruction 4°  J94 

De   Neuville's  Trois   Comedies  pour  Jeunes  Filles.     I.   Les  Cuisinieres. 

II.  Le  Petit  Tom.     III.  La  Malade  Imaginaire.     Paper..  35  171 
Drohojowska's  Demoiselle  de  Saint-Cyr.     With  Souvestre's  Testament 

de  Mme.  Patural.     Plays.     Boards .  20  173 

Erckmann-Chatrian's  Le  Conscrit  de  1813.     (Bocher.) 90  180 

The  same.     Boards 4s  l8° 

Le  Blocus.     (Bocher.)  9°  l8° 

The  same.     Paper 4s  l8° 

Madame  Therese.     (Bocher.) 00  180 

The  same.     Paper 48  180 

Eugene's  Students'  Grammar  of  the  French  Language 1  30  19s 

Elementary  French  Lessons 60  195 

Fallet's  Les  Princes  de  1' Art   100  180 

The  same.     Paper 52  180 

Feuillet's  Le  Roman  d'un  Jeune  Homme  Pauvre.  The  Novel.    (Owen.)  90  181 

The  same.     Paper 44  181 

Le  Roman  d'un  Jeune  Homme  Pauvre.     The  Play.     Boards.  20  167 

Le  Village.     Play.     Paper  20  167 

FevaPs  Chouans  et  Bleus.     (Sankey.) 80  181 

The  same.     Paper  4°  181 

Fisher's  Easy  French  Reading 75  J95 

Fleury's  L'Histoire  de  France 1  10  195 

Ancient    History 7°  *95 

Foa's  Le  Petit  Robinson  de  Paris.      Vocab 7°  l81 

The  same.     Paper 36  l81 

Contes  Biographiques.     I'ocab 80  181 

The  same.      Paper 4°  l8x 

Fortier's  Histoire  de  la  Litterature  Francaise   100  196 

Gasc's  Dictionary  of  the  French  and  English  Languages.     8vo 225  196 

Pocket  French  and  English  Dictionary.     i8mo 100  197 

Translator 100  197 

Girardin's  La  Joie  fait  Peur.     Play.     Paper 20  167 

Halevy's  L'Abbe  Constantin.     Vocab.     (Super.)     Boards 4°  l82 

Hugo's  Selections.     (Warren.) •  7°  l8a 

Ruy  Bias.     Play.     (Michaels.)     Boards. 4°  168 

Hernani.     Play.     (Harper.) 7°  l67 

Janon's  Recueil  de  Poesies 8o  l68 

Jeu  des  Auteurs.     Ninety-six  cards  in  a  box 80  197 

Joynes's  Minimum  French  Grammar  and  Reader 75  '98 

Joynes-Otto's  First  Book  in  French.     Boards 3°  J99 

vii 


Henry  Holt  &-  Co.'s  Educational  Publications 

CATALOGUE 

PRICE  PAGE 

Joynes-Otto's  Introductory  French  Lessons $i  oo  199 

Introductory  French  Reader 80  199 

Labiche  et  Delacour's  La  Cagnotte.     Play.     Paper 20  168 

Les  Petits  Oiseaux.     Play.     Paper 20  169 

Labiche  et  Martin's  La  Poudre  aux  Veux.     Play.     Paper 20  169 

Lacombe's  Petite  Histoire  du  Peuple  Francais 60  182 

La  Fontaine's  Fables  Choisies.     (Delbos.)     Boards  40  169 

Leclerq's  Trois  Proverbes.     Plays.     Paper 20  169 

Mace's  Bouchee  de  Pain.     Vocab 100  183 

The  same.     Vocab.     Paper 52  183 

Madame  de  M.'s  La  Petite  Martian.  With  Mine,  de  Gaulle's  Le  Bracelet. 

Paper 20  169 

Matzke's  French  Pronunciation 

Mazires'  Le  Collier  de  Pedes.     Play.     Paper.. 20  169 

de  Maistre's  Voyage  autour  de  ma  Chambre.     Paper 28  183 

M<.ras's  Syntaxe  Pratique  de  la  Langue  Francaise 100  200 

Legendes    Franchises  :    No.  1.  Robert  le  Diable 20  200 

No.  2.  Le  Bon  Roi  Dagobert 20  200 

Xo.  3.  Merlin  l'Enchanteur 30  200 

Merimee's  Colomba.     (Cameron.) 60  184 

The  same.     Boards 36  184 

oiiire's  L'Avare.     Play.    (Joynes.)     Boards 20  170 

I. e  Bourgeois  Gentilhomme.     Play.     (Delbos.)     Paper 20  170 

Lc  Misanthrope.     Play.     (Joynes.)     Boards 20  170 

Moutonnier's  Les  Premiers  Pas  dans  l'fitude  du  Francais 75  201 

Pour  Apprendre  a  Parler  Francais  75  201 

Musiciens  Celebres 1  00  184 

The  same.     Paper 52  184 

Musset's  l'n  Caprice.     Play.     Paper 20  170 

Otto's  French  Conversation-Grammar.     Half  roan.     (AVy,  60  cts.) t  30  202 

Progressive  French  Reader 1   10  202 

Owen-Paget  (The)  Annotations 185 

Parlez-vous  Francais  ?     Boards 40  202 

Porchat's  Trois  Mois  sous  la  Neige 70  186 

The  same.     Paper 32  186 

Pressense's  Rosa.     Vocab.     (Pylodet.) .■ 100  186 

T he  same.     Paper 52  186 

Pylodet's  Gouites  de  Rosee 50  171 

Lecjons  de  Litterature  Francaise  Classique 1  30  204 

Theatre  Fran9ais  Classiquc.     Paper 20  203 

La  Litterature  Francaise  Contemporaine 1  10  186 

I  a  Mere  I'Oie.     Boards 40  171 

Beginning  French.     Boards  45  203 

Beginner^  French  Reader.    Boards 45  203 

Sei  1  md  French  Reader 90  203 

Racine's  Athalie.    Play.    (Joynes.)    Boards 20  171 

Esther.     Play.     (Joynes.)     Boards 20  171 

Plaidetirs.     Play.     (Delbos.) 20  171 

Regent's  French  and  German  Poems.    Boards 20  172 

Riodu's   Lucie   60  204 

Sadler's  [Yanslating  English  into  French 1  00  204 

St.  Germain's  Pour  une  Epingle.     Vocab 75  187 

The  same.     Paper. 36  187 

Sand's  La  Petite  Fadette.     (Bother.)  100  188 

une     Boards  52  188 

Marianne.     Paper  30  188 

La  Mare  aux  Diable.    (Joynes.)  '88 

Sandeau's  Mademoiselle  de  la  seigliere,    Play.     Boards  20  172 

I.. 1  Maison  de  Penarvan.     Play.    Boards 20  172 

Scribe  et  Lcgouve.     La  Bataille  de  Dames.     Play.     Boards 20  172 

Li  i  Doigts  de  Fee.     Play.     Boards 20  173 

Scribe  et  MMesvili                                        Paper 20  173 

i        es  Filles  Modeles      Papei 24  188 

Les  Females  qui  Pleurent,     Play.     Paper 20  173 

Souvestrc's  '       I             phi  nous  les  Toits 60  188 

Paper 28  188 

La  Vieille  Cousine                1  Ricochets,    Plays,    Paper —  20  173 

viii 


Henry  Holt  &  Co.'s  Educational  Publications 


CATALOGUR 

PRICE  l'AGK 

Souvestre's  La  Loterie  de  Francfort,  with  Curo's  La  Jeune  Savante. 

Plays.     Boards .-  »    2°  "73 

Le  Testament  de  Mme.  Patural,  with  Drohojowska's  Demoi- 
selle de  Saint-Cyr.     Plays.     Boards 20  173 

Stern  and  Mi'ras's  fitude  Progressive  de  la  Langue  Franchise 1  20  205 

Taine's  Les  Origines  de  la  France  Contemporaine.    (Edgren.)    Boards.  50  189 

Thiers'  Expedition  de  Bonaparte  en  figypte.    (Edgren.)     Boards 35  189 

Toepffer's  Bibliotheque  de  mon  Oncle.    (Marcou.)   189 

Vacquerie's  Jean  Baud ry.     Play.     Paper 20  '73 

Verconsin's  C'lStait  Gertrude.    En  Wagon.   (Together.)   Plays.    Boards.  30  173 

Verne's  Michel  Strogoff.    (Lewis.) •■  7"  '9° 

Walter's  Classic  French  Letters 75  *9° 

Whitney's  Practical  French  Grammar.     Half  roan.    (Key,  80  cts.) 130  206 

Practical  French 9°  207 

Brief  'French  Grammar   65  2o8 

Introductory  French  Reader 7°  2°9 

Witcomb  and  Bellenger's  Guide  to  French  Conversation 5°  210 

GREEK    AND    LATIN. 

Brooks's  Introduction  to  Attic  Greek '  ">  216 

Goodell's  The  Greek  in  English   60  217 

Greek  Lessons.     Part  I.  The  Greek  in  English.     Part  II.  The 

Greek  of  Xenophon •••  *  25  2I7 

Judson's  The  Latin  in  English 100  218 

Peck's  Gai  Suetoni  Tranquilli  De  Vita  Csesarum  Libri  Duo 1  20  218 

Latin  Pronunciation 4°  220 

Preparatory  Latin  and  Greek  Texts 120  221 

Latin  part  separate 80  221 

Greek  part  separate 6°  221 

Richardson's  Six  Months'  Preparation  for  Caesar 90  221 

Scrivener's  Greek  Testament   2  00  221 

Williams's  Extracts  from  Various  Greek  Authors 100  221 

ITALIAN    AND    SPANISH. 

ITALIAN. 

Amicis'  Cuore,  abridged.     (Kuhns.) 211 

Montague's  Manual  of  Italian  Grammar.     Half  roan 100  213 

Nota's  La  Fiera.     Paper 60  211 

Ongaro's  Rosa  dell'  Alpi.     Paper 60  211 

Parlate  Italiano  ?     Boards 4°  2I3 

Pellico's  Francesca  da  Rimini.     Paper 60  211 

SPANISH. 

Caballero's  La  Familia  de  Alvareda.     Paper 75  212 

i  Habla  vd.  Espanol  ?     Boards 4°  212 

I  Habla  v.  Ingles  ?     Boards 40  212 

Lope  de  Vega's  Obras  Maestras.     Burnished  buckram 100  212 

Manning's  Practical  Spanish  Grammar.     (Revised  Ed.) 100  212 

Ramsey's  Text-book  of  Modern  Spanish.... 1  80  214 

Sales's  Spanish  Hive  , ■ J  °°  2I5 

ix 


A 


"%3A 


AOF-0 


vkios-; 


"%3/\ 


'/HI3A 


■J3U3NV-S01*N         vflMAINW' 


^t-UBRARY-Oc         ^UIBRARYQr 


University  of  California.  Los  Angeles 


L  005  213  905  2 


^OJIIVJ-JO^      %MI1V3-J0^  <Tii3QNVS01^        "%!3AIN(HttV 


so 


."*> 


^FCALIfOfy 


tovyaiH^      ^Aavaan-^ 


\WEUNIVER% 


^lMNV-SOl^ 


<AV\EtiNIVER%       ^lOS-ANGEUfc* 


i— » 

3> 


<r 


(0   Q I 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


000  695  487 
k        ^E-llBRARY^ 


%l3AINfl-]Vb?  %MITCH0^        ^0JITVJdO: 


\V\E-UNIVERS//>. 
o 


a^IOS-ANCEIFju 


^0F-CAllF(% 

i>5 


^MNYSOl^       *%I3AINIHWV  ^AaV«flll# 


.^OF-CAIIFO% 


^uivaaiH^ 


^•LIBRARYQ^       ^ILIBRARYj^ 


AWH-DNIVERS//) 


^IOS-ANCELfj^ 

O 


^odnvj-jo^    %omn^      <^»so^     *%hainih$ 


t0KAUF(%,       ^0FCALIF0%, 


.^EUNIVERS/a 


^lOS-ANGEtfju 


